Welfare Quality®
Assessment protocol for poultry
Acknowledgement
“The present document originates from the Welfare Quality® research project which has
been co-financed by the European Commission, within the 6th Framework Research,
contract No. FOOD-CT-2004-506508.
The text represents the authors’ views and does not necessarily represent a position of
the Commission who will not be liable for the use made of such information”.
Disclaimer
Restrictions on use of the integrated Welfare Quality® system
This document presents the practical assessment protocols required to carry out a Welfare
®
Quality assessment. The practical application and integrity of this system depends upon the
following;
•
Training and validation in the methods and protocols is essential.
•
Ownership or possession of these assessment documents alone does not indicate
capacity to carry out assessment without adequate approved training.
•
No individual or organisation can be considered capable of applying these methods in a
robust, repeatable, and valid way without attending harmonised training approved by the
®
Welfare Quality consortium.
•
The strength of the integrated approach lies in the use of the entire assessment method.
®
Use of isolated elements of the Welfare Quality system will not be considered as
appropriate for assessing animal welfare.
•
The application of the Welfare Quality logo, and reference to the Welfare Quality
assessment system in promotional or other commercial material (including training
material), is dependent upon agreed conditions of use, which must be negotiated with the
®
Welfare Quality consortium as represented by the coordinator. Non-promotional and non
®
commercial reference to the Welfare Quality system, for example in scientific literature
or documentation describing welfare assessment in general, is encouraged.
•
Nothing in this publication may be copied without the permission of the Welfare Quality
Consortium, represented by the coordinator:
®
®
®
ASG Veehouderij BV, Lelystad, The Netherlands.
© 2009 by ASG Veehouderij BV
®
Welfare Quality project office
Mrs. Anke de Lorm
PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
[email protected]
This document presents version 1 of the assessment protocol for poultry.
st
October 1 , 2009
1
Foreword
®
The European Welfare Quality project developed standardized ways of assessing animal
welfare and a standardized way of integrating this information to enable farms and
slaughterhouses to be assigned to one of four categories (from poor through to good animal
welfare).
®
One of the innovations of the Welfare Quality animal welfare assessment system is that it
focuses more on animal-based measures (e.g. directly related to animal body condition, health
aspects, injuries, behaviour, etc.). Existing approaches largely concentrate on design or
management-based characteristics (e.g. size of cage or pen, flooring specifications etc.). Of
course, this does not mean that resource-based or management-based factors are ignored in
®
Welfare Quality ; and many of these are important features of the system. A particular attraction
of using animal-based measures is that they show the ‘outcome’ of the interaction between the
animal and its environment (housing design and management) and this combined outcome is
®
assessed by the Welfare Quality assessment system.
®
This protocol provides a description of the Welfare Quality assessment procedure for poultry.
®
Within the Welfare Quality project, these assessment protocols have been developed through
the collaboration of a large number of research groups and institutes. A list of the contributors to
®
Welfare Quality can be found in Annex C. Special thanks are due to Bosse Algers, Arnd Bassler,
Raphaëlle Botreau, Steve Brown, Laëtitia Colin, Paolo Ferrari, Björn Forkman, Ernst Froehlich,
Christine Graml, Henk Gunnink, Tersia Heiskanen, Ingrid de Jong, Anne Larsen, Tine Lentfer,
Christine Leterrier, Ute Knierim, Knut Niebuhr, Victoria Sandilands, Marion Staack, Esther
Struelens, Susanne Waiblinger, Francoise Wemelsfelder, Sue Haslam, Heike Schulze Westerath,
Rebecka Westin, Lindsay Wilkins, Steve Wotton and Patrick Zimmerman for their work in the
development of the final protocols.
This report has been edited by Andy Butterworth (University of Bristol), Cecile Arnould (Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique) and Thea Fiks-van Niekerk (ID-Lelystad, Instituut voor
dierhouderij en diergezondheid) for the poultry specific parts. Furthermore Isabelle Veissier
(Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) and Linda Keeling (Sveriges
Lantbruksuniversitet) edited the introductory parts of the document. Isabelle Veissier also
contributed to the development of the calculation systems and the English edit was carried out by
Andy Butterworth. Gwen van Overbeke and Vere Bedaux (NEN, Netherlands Standardization
Institute) supported the writing and editing of the protocol.
®
®
The Welfare Quality protocols reflect the present scientific status of the Welfare Quality project,
but will undergo an ongoing process of updating and revision since these protocols are
considered ‘living documents’.
®
Prof Dr Harry J. Blokhuis (Coordinator Welfare Quality )
Uppsala, October 2009
Please use the following citation when referring to this document:
®
®
Welfare Quality (2009). Welfare Quality assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens).
®
Welfare Quality Consortium, Lelystad, Netherlands.
2
Table of content
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1. SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2. LEGAL ASPECTS .................................................................................................................... 10
3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 11
®
4. BACKGROUND TO THE WELFARE QUALITY PROTOCOLS............................................. 13
4.1 OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................. 13
4.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.2 Defining welfare principles and criteria ........................................................................ 14
4.2.3 Measures developed to check criteria ......................................................................... 15
4.2.4 Calculation of scores.................................................................................................... 16
®
5. WELFARE QUALITY APPLIED TO BROILER CHICKEN ..................................................... 21
5.1A COLLECTION OF DATA FOR BROILER CHICKEN ON FARM (MEASURED ON FARM) ...................... 21
5.1A.1 Good feeding ............................................................................................................. 22
5.1A.2 Good housing ............................................................................................................ 22
5.1A.3 Good health ............................................................................................................... 26
5.1A.4 Appropriate behaviour ............................................................................................... 28
5.1A.5 Sampling and practical information ........................................................................... 31
5.1B COLLECTION OF DATA FOR BROILER CHICKEN ON FARM (MEASURED AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE) .. 32
5.1B.1 Good feeding ............................................................................................................. 32
5.1B.2 Good housing ............................................................................................................ 33
5.1B.3 Good health ............................................................................................................... 33
5.1B.4 Appropriate behaviour ............................................................................................... 38
5.1B.5 Sampling and practical information ........................................................................... 39
5.2 CALCULATION OF SCORES FOR BROILER CHICKEN ON FARM .................................................... 39
5.2.1 Criterion scores ............................................................................................................ 39
5.2.2 Principle scores ............................................................................................................ 51
5.2.3 Overall assessment ..................................................................................................... 53
5.3 COLLECTION OF DATA FOR BROILER CHICKEN AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE ....................................... 54
5.3.1 Good feeding ............................................................................................................... 54
5.3.2 Good housing ............................................................................................................... 55
5.3.3 Good health ................................................................................................................. 55
5.3.4 Appropriate behaviour ................................................................................................. 58
5.3.5 Sampling and practical information.............................................................................. 58
5.4 CALCULATION OF SCORES FOR BROILER CHICKEN AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE ................................. 59
®
6. WELFARE QUALITY APPLIED TO LAYING HENS .............................................................. 60
6.1 COLLECTION OF DATA FOR LAYING HENS ON FARM .................................................................. 60
6.1.1 Good feeding ............................................................................................................... 61
6.1.2 Good housing ............................................................................................................... 62
6.1.3 Good health ................................................................................................................. 66
6.1.4 Appropriate behaviour ................................................................................................. 72
6.1.5 Sampling and practical information.............................................................................. 79
6.2 CALCULATION OF SCORES FOR LAYING HENS ON FARM ........................................................... 81
6.3 COLLECTION OF DATA FOR LAYING HENS AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE .............................................. 81
6.4 CALCULATION OF SCORES FOR LAYING HENS AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE ........................................ 81
3
ANNEX A: GUIDELINE FOR VISIT OF ANIMAL UNIT ............................................................... 82
ANNEX B: RECORDING SHEETS (RS) ...................................................................................... 85
B1. RS BROILER CHICKEN ON FARM ............................................................................................. 85
B2. RS BROILER CHICKEN AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE ......................................................................... 91
B3. RS LAYING HENS ON FARM .................................................................................................... 95
B4. RS LAYING HENS AT SLAUGHTERHOUSE ............................................................................... 108
®
ANNEX C: CONTRIBUTORS TO WELFARE QUALITY .......................................................... 109
COLOPHON
116
4
Introduction
Animal welfare is an important attribute of an overall ‘food quality concept’ and consumers expect
their animal-related products, especially food, to be produced with respect for the welfare of the
animals. Recent surveys carried out by the European Commission1 as well as studies within the
®
Welfare Quality project2, confirm that animal welfare is an issue of considerable significance for
European consumers and that European citizens show a strong commitment to animal welfare. In
order to accommodate societal concerns about the welfare quality of animal food products as well
as related market demands, e.g. welfare as a constituent aspect of product quality, there is a
pressing need for reliable science based systems for assessing the animals’ welfare status3.
In January 2006 the European Commission adopted a Community Action Plan on the Protection
and Welfare of Animals4. The Action Plan outlines the Commission’s planned initiatives and
measures to improve the protection and welfare of animals for the period 2006-2010. The Action
Plan aims to ensure that animal welfare is addressed in the most effective manner possible, in all
EU sectors and through EU relations with Third Countries. Among other things the Action Plan
foresees a classification system for animal welfare practices, to differentiate between cases
where minimum standards are applied and cases where even higher standards are used. It also
foresees setting up standardised indicators whereby production systems which apply higher
animal welfare standards than the minimum standards get due recognition. The option of an EU
label for animal welfare is also put forward, to promote products obtained in line with certain
animal welfare standards.
Consumers' concern and the apparent demand for information on animal welfare was the starting
®
th
point of Welfare Quality , funded from the European Commission within the 6 EU programme.
The project started in 2004 and became the largest piece of integrated research work yet carried
®
out in animal welfare in Europe. The Welfare Quality project is a partnership of 40 institutions in
Europe and, since 2006, four in Latin America. The partners are based in 13 European and four
Latin American countries.
®
The Welfare Quality project set out to develop scientifically based tools to assess animal welfare.
The acquired data provide feedback to animal unit managers about the welfare status of their
animals, and is translated into accessible and understandable information on the welfare status of
®
food producing animals for consumers and others. Welfare Quality also generates knowledge on
practical strategies to improve animal welfare on farm and at slaughter.
®
In a truly integrated effort Welfare Quality combined analyses of consumer perceptions and
attitudes with existing knowledge from animal welfare science and thereby identified 12 criteria
that should be adequately covered in the assessment systems. To address these areas of
concern, it was decided to concentrate on so-called animal-based measures that address aspects
of the actual welfare state of the animals in terms of, for instance, their behaviour, fearfulness,
health or physical condition. Such animal-based measures include the effects of variations in the
way the farming system is managed (role of the farmer) as well as specific system-animal
interactions. However, it is clear that resource- and management-based measures can contribute
1
European Commission (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Eurobarometer, Brussels.
138 pp.
European Commission (2006). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a
Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, COM (2006) 13 final, Brussels.
European Commission (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Eurobarometer, Brussels. 82 pp.
2
Kjaernes, U., Roe, E. & Bock, B. (2007). Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. In: I. Veissier, B. Forkman and B.
Jones (Eds), Assuring animal welfare: from societal concerns to implementation (pp. 13-18). Second Welfare Quality
stakeholder conference, 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, Germany.
3
Blokhuis, H.J., Jones, R.B., Geers, R., Miele, M. & Veissier, I. (2003). Measuring and monitoring animal welfare:
transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare, 12, 445-455.
4
European Commission. (2006). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a
community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006e2010, COM (2006) 13 final, Brussels.
5
to a welfare assessment if they are closely correlated to animal-based measures. Moreover,
resource- and management-based measures can also be used to identify risks to animal welfare
and identify causes of poor welfare so that improvement strategies can be implemented.
Following a common approach across animal species an integrated, standardized and, wherever
possible, animal-based methodology for assessment of animal welfare was then developed. The
chosen animal species, based on their economic and numeric importance, are pigs, poultry and
cattle. In addition, the focus has been on the production period of the animals´ life (i.e. on
farm/transport/slaughter).
The present protocol describes the procedures and requirements for the assessment of welfare in
poultry and is restricted to the key production animals, which are broiler chicken and laying hens.
The document is divided to present the collection of data for broiler chicken measured on farm
and then the collection of data measured at the slaughterhouse, but which are used in the
assessment of broiler welfare on farm. Thus these two sections complement each other and are
used together in the calculation of welfare scores for broiler chicken on farm. The following
section presents the collection of data for laying hens measured on farms. As yet there is no
protocol for collection of data at slaughter and no calculation of welfare scores for laying hens.
6
Glossary
ADT
Cm
2
(C-) m
DOA
e.g.
h
i.e.
Kg
Ls
Min
NO(T)
QBA
RS
s
VAS
Avoidance distance test
Centimetre(s)
Square (centi-) metre
Dead on arrival
exempli gratia: for example
Hour(s)
id est: that is
Kilogram(s)
Line speed (birds per minute)
Minute(s)
Novel object (test)
Qualitative behaviour assessment
Recording sheet
Second(s)
Visual analogue scale
7
1 Scope
This poultry protocol will deal with measures related to the welfare assessment for two categories
of poultry; broiler chickens and laying hens. The descriptions are kept as short as possible and for
training purposes more detailed descriptions of the measures are recommended. The information
gathered covers the production period on farm for broiler chicken and laying hens and the period
at the end of life, including transport and slaughter, for broiler chicken (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Schematic reproduction of the different periods in the life of production poultry.
At least four major periods can be distinguished: the hatchery, the pullet rearing period for laying
hens (which runs from hatching to point of lay), the production period (chicken meat and eggs);
and the end of life of the animal, where it will be transported and slaughtered (see Table 1).
Some specific periods are not yet included in the protocols for some categories of animals:
• For broilers the rearing period is essentially the production period and thus no
distinction between the two is made;
• In this protocol we do not consider the hatchery or the pullet rearing period
(laying hens). No data will be collected during the time the animals are
transported, although measures taken at the slaughterhouse will indirectly allow
assessment of the welfare of broilers during transport to be assessed. Neither do
we consider parent or other poultry breeding stock;
• Transport between farms, for example as sometimes occurs between rearing and
production periods is not considered;
• The protocol is not applicable to other avian species such as ostriches, turkeys,
geese, ducks, quail or guinea fowl;
This is also shown in Table 1.
Rearing
Producing
End of life
Broiler chicken
Laying hens
Included in poultry protocols
Not included in protocols
Table 1 Periods in the life of poultry which are considered in the Welfare Quality® protocols.
The protocols described in this section apply only to broiler chicken and laying hens (Gallus
gallus). The protocols for broiler chicken and laying hens are applicable in a wide range of animal
units, whether they are extensive or intensive.
8
When visiting a farm for professional assessment purposes, it may be appropriate to collect
additional information. Such information may be useful for management support or advice for the
farmer. This advisory support role must be separated from the inspection role as in general,
assessors must not involve themselves in giving prescriptive advice to clients. If additional
information is collected, this may contribute to improved efficiency in the long term, by reducing
the total number of visits to particular farms. However since this document deals with the
assessment system, only questions necessary for the assessment process are included. It is
proposed that any additional questions aimed at advisory support are best developed
independently by the advisory or management support services in each country.
9
2 Legal aspects
®
The Welfare Quality protocols should only be applied to farming systems which operate within
®
the applicable legal framework of the country. The Welfare Quality protocols do not replace or
supersede any existing farm assurance or legal standards. They provide an additional tool for the
assessment of animal welfare using predominantly animal-based measures and as such can add
valuable additional information to existing inspection programs.
The individual animal unit manager has responsibility to operate within legal requirements. It is
not considered feasible or desirable to list all legal statutes relevant to animal and farm operation
in Europe within this document. For those reasons, a list of current normative legal texts is not
®
provided for within the Welfare Quality protocols.
However, the current key legislative framework can be found at the webpage of EUR-lex, where
1
the relevant treaties, legislation, case-law and legislative proposals can be consulted. If the
application or interpretation of any element of this standard conflicts with legislation, current
acting legislation always has priority.
1
http://eur-lex.europa.eu
10
3 Terms and definitions
Advisor
®
Person who uses the outcome of the Welfare Quality protocols and other information to advise
the animal unit manager on how to improve welfare
NOTE This is distinct from the assessor
Animal unit
Section of a farm, a transport unit or a slaughter plant that deals with a certain type of animal
NOTE An animal unit can, for example, be the section of a farm where all adult animals are kept or the
section of a slaughter plant where all animals are handled and slaughtered
Animal unit manager
Person responsible for an animal unit
NOTE This can be the manager on the farm, the driver of the transport vehicle or the slaughter plant
manager (or person responsible for animal care)
Animal-based measure
Measure that is taken directly from the animal
NOTE
Animal-based measures can include, for instance, behavioural and clinical observations
Assessment protocol
An assessment protocol is a description of the procedures and requirements for the overall
assessment of welfare
Assessor
®
Person in charge of collecting data using the Welfare Quality protocols on an animal unit in order
that the welfare of animals is assessed
Broiler chicken (Gallus gallus)
Domesticated fowl of genotypes suitable for meat production
Flock cycle
A broiler flock cycle starts when the one-day old chicks are placed in the broiler house and ends
when the flock is transported to the slaughterhouse
A laying hen flock cycle starts when a young flock, about 16 weeks, is placed in the laying bird house and
ends when the flock is slaughtered.
Laying hen (Gallus gallus)
Domesticated fowl of genotypes predominantly selected for laying eggs, and additionally
sometimes used for meat production
Management-based measure
Measures which refer to what the animal unit manager does on the animal unit and what
management processes are used
NOTE Management-based measures contain, for instance, the procedures used to protect animals from
disease, including for example maintaining good litter quality
Overall assessment of welfare
Synthesis of welfare information, which will then be used to allocate an animal unit to a welfare
category
NOTE The overall assessment of welfare reflects the overall welfare state of the animals
Pullet (Gallus gallus)
Young laying birds before onset of egg laying
11
Resource-based measure
Measure that is taken regarding the environment in which the animals are kept
NOTE Resource-based measures contain for instance the number of drinkers
Transport unit
The transportation truck, lorry, module etc. which is considered as part of an animal unit for
assessment purposes
Welfare category
Final categorization given to an animal unit that indicates the overall welfare of animals in that
particular unit
NOTE This is expressed on a 4 level scale: not classified, acceptable, enhanced, and excellent
Welfare criterion
Represents a specific area of welfare concern that has to be addressed to satisfy good animal
welfare
NOTE An example of a welfare criterion is “absence of prolonged hunger”
Welfare measure
Measure taken on an animal unit that is used to assess a welfare criterion
NOTE A measure can be animal-based, resource-based or management-based
Welfare principle
Collection of criteria associated with one of the following four areas: feeding, housing, health and
behaviour
®
Welfare Quality protocol
Description of the measures that will be used to calculate the overall assessment of welfare
NOTE The protocols also specify how the data will be collected
Welfare score
Score that indicates how well an animal unit fulfils a criterion or principle
12
4 Background Welfare Quality® protocols
®
This chapter outlines the principles and overall structure of the Welfare Quality protocols and
how they are to be used in the overall assessment of animal welfare.
4.1 Overall structure of the project
®
Welfare Quality has developed a system to enable overall assessment of welfare and the
standardised conversion of welfare measures into summary information.
The welfare assessment related to a specific animal unit is based on the calculation of welfare
scores from the information collected on that unit. An advisor can use the welfare assessment to
highlight points requiring the animal unit manager’s attention. The information can also be used to
inform consumers about the welfare status of animal products or the welfare quality of the supply
chain.
The species protocols contain all the measures relevant for the species and an explanation of
what data should be collected, and in what way.
The species protocols address animals at different stages of their lives and/or in various housing
systems. It can cover the rearing, the production, or the end of life of the animal, which includes
transport and slaughter (Figure 2). At the moment there are no measures that are carried out
during the actual transport process, but the effects of transport on welfare can be determined by
examining the animals on arrival at the slaughterhouse. Transport measures may be added in the
future.
®
Figure 2 The different sources of information in Welfare Quality . It is outside the scope of this
document, but potential use of the output generated includes information provided to consumers,
advisors and retailers.
13
4.2 Basic principles
4.2.1 Introduction
Welfare is a multidimensional concept. It comprises both physical and mental health and includes
several aspects such as physical comfort, absence of hunger and disease, possibilities to perform
motivated behaviour, etc. The importance attributed to different aspects of animal welfare may
vary between different people.
The different measurable aspects of welfare to be covered are turned into welfare criteria. The
criteria reflect what is meaningful to animals as understood by animal welfare science. They also
have to be agreed by stakeholders in order to ensure that wider ethical and societal issues have
been dealt with, and furthermore to maximize the likelihood of successful translation into practice.
®
In the case of Welfare Quality these have been systematically discussed with members of the
general public and farmers, as well as with representatives of these and other stakeholder
groups.
A top-down approach was used - four main welfare principles were identified and then split into
twelve independent welfare criteria. Finally measures were selected to assess these welfare
criteria. In general, the principles and criteria which have been chosen are relevant for different
species and throughout an animal’s entire lifespan. A bottom-up approach, i.e. stepwise
integration of measures, leads ultimately to the overall assessment of welfare (see Figure 3).
Animals differ in their genetics, early experience and temperament and therefore may experience
the same environment in different ways. Even apparently similar environments may be managed
differently by the stockperson, further affecting animals’ experience of a particular situation.
®
Because welfare is a characteristic of the individual animal, Welfare Quality has based its
welfare assessment essentially on animal-based measures (e.g. health and behaviour). Since
resource-based measures (e.g. type of housing and stocking density) or management-based
measures (e.g. breeding strategies and health plans) are a poor direct guarantee of good animal
welfare in a particular situation, these measures are avoided within the protocols. However, when
no animal-based measure is available to check a criterion, or when such a measure is not
sensitive or reliable enough, measures of the resources or the management are used to check as
much as possible that a given welfare criterion is met.
There is no gold standard measure of overall animal welfare and no available information on the
®
relative importance animals attribute to the various welfare aspects. Welfare Quality scientists
are aware that the production of an overall assessment of animal welfare is by nature bound to
ethical decisions, e.g. on whether we should consider the average state of animals vs. the worst
ones, whether we should consider each welfare criterion separately vs. together in a more holistic
approach, or whether a balance between societal aspirations for high welfare levels and the
®
realistic achievements of such levels in practice should be achieved. Welfare Quality scientists
did not decide upon these ethical issues themselves. They consulted experts, including animal
scientists, social scientists, and stakeholders, and the methodology for overall assessment was
then adjusted according to their opinions; that is that all of the parameters used in the scoring
model were optimised so as to best match expert opinions.
4.2.2 Defining welfare principles and criteria
Each welfare principle is phrased in such a way that it communicates a key welfare question.
Four main principles are identified: good feeding, good housing, good health, appropriate
behaviour. They correspond to the questions:
• Are the animals properly fed and supplied with water?
• Are the animals properly housed?
• Are the animals healthy?
• Does the behaviour of the animals reflect optimized emotional states?
14
Each principle comprises two to four criteria. Criteria are independent of each other and form an
exhaustive but minimal list. Welfare principles and criteria are summarized in Table 2.
Welfare
principles
Welfare
criteria
1 Absence of prolonged hunger
Good feeding
2 Absence of prolonged thirst
3 Comfort around resting
Good housing
4 Thermal comfort
5 Ease of movement
6 Absence of injuries
Good health
7 Absence of disease
8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
9 Expression of social behaviours
10 Expression of other behaviours
Appropriate
behaviour
11 Good human-animal relationship
12 Positive emotional state
®
Table 2 The principles and criteria that are the basis for the Welfare Quality assessment
protocols.
More detailed definitions of welfare criteria are described below.
1. Animals should not suffer from prolonged hunger, i.e. they should have a suitable and
appropriate diet.
2. Animals should not suffer from prolonged thirst, i.e. they should have a sufficient and
accessible water supply.
3. Animals should have comfort when they are resting.
4. Animals should have thermal comfort, i.e. they should neither be too hot nor too cold.
5. Animals should have enough space to be able to move around freely.
6. Animals should be free of injuries, e.g. skin damage and locomotory disorders.
7. Animals should be free from disease, i.e. animal unit managers should maintain high
standards of hygiene and care.
8. Animals should not suffer pain induced by inappropriate management, handling,
slaughter, or surgical procedures (e.g. castration, dehorning).
9. Animals should be able to express normal, non-harmful, social behaviours (e.g.
grooming).
10. Animals should be able to express other normal behaviours, i.e. it should be possible to
express species-specific natural behaviours such as foraging.
11. Animals should be handled well in all situations, i.e. handlers should promote good
human-animal relationships.
12. Negative emotions such as fear, distress, frustration or apathy should be avoided
whereas positive emotions such as security or contentment should be promoted.
4.2.3 Measures developed to check criteria
®
Whenever possible, the final Welfare Quality assessment measures have been evaluated with
respect to their validity (does the measure reflect some aspect of the actual welfare of animals),
reliability (acceptable inter or intra observer repeatability and robustness to external factors e.g.
time of day or weather conditions) and their feasibility. A further important aspect of this data
collection is that value judgements are minimized, i.e. the assessor counts or classifies animals
according to a simple series of categories illustrated by pictures or video clips. Hence measures
in the protocols do not require veterinary diagnostic expertise or specialist animal behaviour
knowledge to be accurately recorded. Some measures which were initially proposed did not meet
these conditions and were dropped from the scheme early in the evaluation process, whereas
other measures have been accepted in anticipation of further improvements and refinements.
This latter concession is because at least one measure per criterion is needed to assess overall
animal welfare. For some criteria, it has been necessary to include resource- and/or
15
management-based measures because no animal-based measure was sufficiently sensitive or
satisfying in terms of validity, reliability, or feasibility.
NOTE It is important to remember that research is continuing to identify new and better measures and that
®
Welfare Quality protocols will be updated in the light of new knowledge.
~30
12
Score 2
Principles
Score 1
Criteria
Measures
4.2.4 Calculation of scores
Once all the measures have been performed on an animal unit, a bottom-up approach is followed
to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare on that particular unit: first the data collected
(i.e. values obtained for the different measures on the animal unit) are combined to calculate
criterion-scores; then criterion-scores are combined to calculate principle-scores; and finally the
animal unit is assigned to one welfare category according to the principle-scores it attained
(Figure 3). A mathematical model has been designed to produce the overall assessment.
Score 3
Overall assessment
4
1
Figure 3 Bottom-up approach for integrating the data on the different measures to an overall
assessment of the animal unit.
Calculation of criterion-scores
Although this is not generally the case, some measures may be related to several criteria (e.g.
low body condition score can originate from hunger or disease, or both). In order to avoid double
counting measures have been allocated to only one criterion, except in very few cases where we
could distinguish the way they were interpreted (e.g. access of cattle to pasture is used to check
the Ease of movement criterion, especially for animals which are tethered in winter, and the
Expression of other behaviour).
The data produced by the measures relevant to a given criterion are interpreted and synthesized
to produce a criterion-score that reflects the compliance of the animal unit to this criterion. This
compliance is expressed on a ‘0’ to ‘100’ value scale, in which:
• ‘0’ corresponds to the worst situation one can find on an animal unit (i.e. the situation
below which it is considered there cannot be further decrements in welfare)
• ‘50’ corresponds to a neutral situation (i.e. level of welfare is not bad but not good)
• ‘100’ corresponds to the best situation one can find on a farm (i.e. the situation in which it
is considered there cannot be further improvements in welfare).
Because the total number of measures, the scale on which they are expressed, and the relative
importance of measures varies between and within criteria and also between animal types, the
calculation of scores varies accordingly. In general there are three main types of calculation:
• When all measures used to check a criterion are taken at farm level and are expressed in
a limited number of categories, a decision tree is produced. An example is provided in
Explanation box 1.
• When a criterion is checked by only one measure taken at individual level, this scale
generally represents the severity of a problem and the proportion of animals observed
can be calculated (e.g. percentage animals walking normally, percentage moderately
lame animals, percentage severely lame animals). In that case a weighted sum is
16
•
calculated, with weights increasing with severity. An example is provided in Explanation
box 2.
When the measures used to check a criterion lead to data expressed on different scales
(e.g. percentage animals lying outside the lying area, or average latency to lie down
expressed in seconds), data are compared to an alarm threshold that represents the limit
between what is considered abnormal and that considered to be normal. Then the
number of alarms is used as the measure value. An example is provided in Explanation
box 3.
Experts from animal sciences were consulted to interpret the raw data in terms of welfare. When
necessary, alarm thresholds were defined by consultation with them. Then experts were asked to
score virtual farms. In the situations where weighted sums were to be calculated, this consultation
was used to define weights that produce the same ranking of farms as the one given by experts.
This exercise showed that experts do not in general follow a linear reasoning, e.g. for a given
disorder a 10 % increase does not yield the same decrement in expert scores at the bottom of the
[0,100] scale (where most animals get this disorder) than at the top of the scale (when most
animals are normal). It is therefore necessary to resort to non-linear functions to produce
criterion-scores, in this case I-spline functions. Briefly, I-spline functions allow calculation of
portions of curves so as to obtain a smooth representative curve. They are expressed in the form
of cubic functions (Explanation box 2).
When a criterion was composed of very different measures which experts found difficult to
consider together, blocks of measures were aggregated using Choquet integrals (Explanation box
4).
Explanation box 1: Decision tree as applied to absence of prolonged thirst in fattening pigs
Thirst is not assessed directly on animals because signs of dehydration can be detected only in
extreme cases. Rather, the number of drinking places, their functioning and their cleanliness are
assessed. The recommended number of pigs is calculated (10 pigs per functioning drinking place and
5 for a drinking place of reduced capacity). If there are more pigs in the pen than recommended then
the number of drinking places is considered insufficient. Thereafter, cleanliness of drinkers and
whether pigs have access to two drinkers in the same pen is considered. The following decision tree is
applied:
Score
Are the drinkers
clean?
Yes
No
Yes
Is the number of
drinker places
sufficient?
No
Are the drinkers
clean?
Yes
No
Are there at least 2
drinkers available
for an animal?
100
Yes
No
80
Are there at least 2
drinkers available
for an animal?
60
Are there at least 2
drinkers available
for an animal?
55
Are there at least 2
drinkers available
for an animal?
35
45
40
20
17
Explanation box 2: Weighted sum and I-spline functions as applied to lameness in dairy
cows
The % of animals moderately lame and the % of animals severely lame are combined in a
weighted sum, with a weight of 2 for mild lameness and 7 for severe lameness. This sum is then
transformed into an index that varies from 0 to 100:
2(%moderate)+7(%severe) 

Index for lameness
I =  100
7


This index is computed into a score using I-spline functions:
-5
3
When I ≤ 65
then Score =
(0.0988 x I) - (0.000955 x I² )- (5.34 x 10 x I )
-5
3
When I ≥ 65
then Score = 29.9 - (0.944 x I) - (0.0145 x I²) + (1.92 x 10 x I )
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% lame cows (weighted for severity)
Explanation box 3: Use of alarm thresholds applied to absence of diseases in broilers
In broiler chicken the following disorders are checked on the farm or at slaughter: ascites,
dehydration, septicaemia, hepatitis, pericarditis, subcutaneous abscesses. The incidence of each
disorder is compared to an alarm threshold, defined as the incidence above which a health plan
is required at the farm level.
Disorder
Ascites
Dehydration
Scepticaemia
Hepatitis
Pericarditis
Subcutaneous abscess
Alarm Threshold (%)
1
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
When the incidence observed on a farm reaches half the alarm threshold, a warning is attributed.
The number of alarms and warnings detected on a farm are calculated. They are used to
calculate a weighted sum finally transformed into a score using I-spline functions (as in the
example shown in Explanation box 2).
Calculation of principle-scores from criterion-scores
Criterion-scores are synthesized to calculate principle-scores. For instance, the scores obtained
by an animal unit for absence of injuries, absence of disease, and absence of pain due to
management procedures are combined to reflect compliance of this unit with the principle ‘good
health’. Animal and social scientists were consulted, and considered some criteria to be more
important than others (e.g. in most animal types, ‘Absence of disease’ is considered to be more
important than ‘Absence of injuries’ which in turn is more important than ‘Absence of pain induced
by management procedures’). Nevertheless, synthesis does not allow compensation between
18
scores (e.g. absence of disease does not compensate for injuries and vice versa). A specific
mathematical operator (Choquet integral) was used to take into account these two lines of
reasoning. In short, the Choquet integral calculates the difference between the minimum score
and the next minimum score and attributes a weight (called ‘capacity’) to that difference. This
process is repeated until the highest score is reached. In the species-specific sections, only the
‘capacities’ are given (µx for the capacity of a criterion x, µxy for the capacity of a group made of 2
criteria x and y, etc.). An example of the calculation of principle-scores is provided in Explanation
box 4.
Explanation box 4: Use of a Choquet integral to calculate the principle-scores for ‘Good
health’.
‘Good health’ integrates 3 criteria; ‘Absence of injuries’, ‘Absence of disease’, and ‘Absence of
pain induced by management procedures’. First the scores obtained by a farm for the 3 criteria
are sorted in increasing order. The first criterion-score is considered, and then the difference
between that score and the next criterion-score is multiplied by the ‘capacity’ (see explanation
below) of the group made of all criteria except the one that brings the lowest score. Following this,
the difference between the last but one score and the next score is multiplied by the ‘capacity’ of
the group made by the combined criteria except those that bring the two lowest scores. This can
be written as follows:
S6

S6

S
 7
Principle-score = 
S7

S8

S8
(
+ (S
+ (S
+ (S
+ (S
+ (S
)
(
)
− S ) µ + (S − S ) µ
− S ) µ + (S − S ) µ
− S ) µ + (S − S ) µ
− S ) µ + (S − S ) µ
− s ) µ + (S − S ) µ
+ S7 − S6 µ78 + S8 − S7 µ8
8
6
8
6
7
if S6 ≤ S7 ≤ S8
6
78
7
8
7
if S6 ≤ S8 ≤ S7
7
68
8
6
8
if S7 ≤ S6 ≤ S8
7
68
6
8
6
if S7 ≤ S8 ≤ S6
8
67
7
6
7
if S8 ≤ S6 ≤ S7
8
67
6
7
6
if S8 ≤ S7 ≤ S7
Where S6, S7, and S8 are the scores obtained by a given farm for Criterion 6 (Absence of
injuries), 7 (Absence of disease), and 8 (Absence of pain due to procedures)
µ6 µ7 µ8 are the capacities of Criterion 6, 7 and 8
µ67 is the capacity of the group made of criteria 6 and 7, etc.
Assignment of animal units to the welfare categories
The scores obtained by an animal unit on all of the welfare principles are used to assign that farm
to a welfare category. At this stage, both animal scientists, social scientists, and stakeholders,
were consulted. The stakeholders were members of the Advisory committee of Welfare Quality®.
Four welfare categories were distinguished to meet stakeholders’ requirements:
Excellent: the welfare of the animals is of the highest level.
Enhanced: the welfare of animals is good.
Acceptable: the welfare of animals is above or meets minimal requirements.
Not classified: the welfare of animals is low and considered unacceptable.
‘Aspiration values’ are defined for each category. They represent the goal that the farm should try
to achieve to be assigned to a given category. The excellence threshold is set at 80, the one for
enhanced at 55 and that for acceptability at 20. But, just as criteria do not compensate each other
within a principle (see above), high scores in one principle do not offset low scores in another, so
categories cannot be based on average scores. At the same time, it is important that the final
classification reflects not only the theoretical acknowledgement of what can be considered
19
excellent, enhanced etc. but also what can realistically be achieved in practice. Therefore, a farm
is considered ‘excellent’ if it scores more than 55 on all principles and more than 80 on two of
them while it is considered ‘enhanced’ if it scores more than 20 on all principles and more than 55
on two of them. Farms with ‘acceptable’ levels of animal welfare score more than 10 on all
principles and more than 20 on three of them. Farms that do not reach these minimum standards
are not classified (Figure 4). An indifference threshold equal to 5 is applied: For instance, 50 is
not considered significantly lower than 55.
100
Excellent
80
60
Enhanced
Score
40
Acceptable
20
Not classified
0
Feeding
1
Housing
2
Health
3
Behaviour
4
Figure 4 Examples of farms in the four welfare categories.
Software has been developed to calculate welfare scores and to produce the overall assessment
®
of animal units. For more information, contact the Welfare Quality consortium, represented by its
coordinator (contact: [email protected]).
Final comments
The following sections are specific to the animal species covered in this document. They are
structured to present firstly the measures collected on farms, secondly the measures collected at
slaughter that apply to welfare assessment on-farm, thirdly the calculation of scores needed for
overall assessment, and finally the measures collected at slaughter that apply to assessment of
the welfare of the animals during transport and slaughter.
It should be emphasised that scientific research will continue to refine measures and that the
®
Welfare Quality protocols will be updated in the light of new knowledge. Training and
validation in the methods and protocols is essential and no individual or organisation can be
considered capable of applying these methods in a robust, repeatable, and valid way without
®
attending harmonised training approved by the Welfare Quality consortium.
20
5 Welfare Quality® applied to broiler chicken
The assessment of welfare is a multi–disciplinary process since assessment on a variety of
different parameters can provide a more comprehensive assessment of an animal’s welfare in
®
any given system. To this end, the Welfare Quality project utilizes physiological, health and
behavioural adaptations to assess the welfare of broiler chicken on farm and at the
slaughterhouse.
In this chapter, a description of each measure for broiler chicken is given, followed by information
about the sample size and the order in which the different measures must be carried out.
Before commencing farm visits, assessors will have been fully trained in all the measures that are
to be assessed using photographs, video clips and practical ‘on farm’ training. For some of the
health measures, this training will involve recognition of symptoms of certain conditions/diseases;
however it is imperative that this document is not used as a diagnostic tool to identify individual
health conditions, but rather as a tool to highlight the presence of health problems affecting the
welfare of animals. The assessor should not enter into discussions with the animal unit manager
on the prevalence or severity of different diseases on their farm; this is a matter for the animal
unit manager and the herd veterinarian. Additionally, in general, the role of the assessor is to
assess, and not to advise directly.
Trained assessors will use either animal–based, management-based or resource–based
measures to achieve a representative assessment of broiler chicken welfare on each farm. Many
different measures are assessed, and many are scored according to a three–point scale ranging
from 0 – 2. The assessment scales have been selected so that a score 0 is awarded where
welfare is good, a score 1 is awarded (where applicable) where there has been some
compromise on welfare, and a score 2 is awarded where welfare is poor and unacceptable. In
some cases a binary (0/2, i.e. Yes/No) or a continuous scale (e.g. cm) is used.
The assessor should prepare and start the visit according to the description in Annex A
(‘Guidelines for visit to an animal unit’). Data can be recorded with the aid of Annex B
(‘Recording Sheets’).
5.1A Collection of data for broiler chicken on farm (measured on farm)
Good feeding
Good
housing
Good health
Welfare Criteria
Absence of prolonged
1
hunger
2
Absence of prolonged thirst
3
Comfort around resting
4
5
6
7
Thermal comfort
Ease of movement
Absence of injuries
Absence of disease
Absence of pain induced by
management procedures
8
Appropriate
1
behaviour
9
Expression of social
behaviours
Measures
This criterion is measured at the
slaughterhouse
Drinker space
Plumage cleanliness, litter quality, dust
sheet test
Panting, huddling
Stocking density
Lameness, hock burn, foot pad dermatitis
On farm mortality, culls on farm
This criterion is not applied in this situation
As yet, no measure is developed for this
criterion
1 *
At the slaughter house, no management procedures such as beak trimming, claw cutting etc are carried out. However,
stunning and slaughter processes are carried out and these are assessed under the heading ‘assessed at slaughter’
21
10
11
12
Expression of other
behaviours
Good human-animal
relationship
Positive emotional state
Cover on the range, free range
Avoidance distance test (ADT)
Qualitative behavioural assessment (QBA)
5.1A.1 Good feeding
5.1A.1.1 Absence of prolonged hunger
This criterion is measured at the slaughterhouse (see § 5.1B.1)
5.1A.1.2 Absence of prolonged thirst
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Drinker space (birds per drinker)
Resource-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
Calculate the total number drinkers in the house according to drinker
type.
Nipples:
Calculate nipples per meter and then multiply by total track length.
Cups:
Calculate number of cups per meter and then multiply by total track
length.
Bell drinkers:
Estimate number of bell drinkers in the house.
Classification
The total number of birds in the house must also be provided.
Flock level:
Number of nipples
Number of cups
Number of drinkers
Number of birds
5.1A.2 Good housing
5.1A.2.1 Comfort around resting
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Plumage cleanliness
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Before measurement, increase the light intensity inside the house if
necessary (as usually done by animal unit manager when inspecting the
flock).
Birds use their feathers to keep warm, to protect themselves from
moisture dirt and skin infections. Clean and healthy birds spend a lot of
time keeping their feathers ‘preened’ – and if their feathers become wet
or soiled with litter (bedding), faeces or dirt, the feathers can lose their
protective properties and so severe soiling with either dirt or faeces can
have significant effects on bird welfare. Assess the cleanliness of the
plumage.
22
Classification
Walk slowly inside the house and catch birds one by one (10 in the
same location). Examine the breast of the birds and score using a
recording sheet (Annex B). If birds are very mobile (for example in free
range systems) it may be necessary to pen small groups of birds to
catch them.
Score using the classification described below.
Flock level:
Percentage of birds scoring ‘0’
Percentage of birds scoring ‘1’
Percentage of birds scoring ‘2’
Percentage of birds scoring ‘3'
0
1
2
© L J Wilkins and A Butterworth, University of Bristol
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
3
Litter quality
Resource- and management-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Assess the quality of the bedding in the house according to the
parameters described below. Poor litter quality may indicate difficulties
in managing the litter which may reflect in skin and foot lesions related
to poor litter quality.
General comment on sampling and litter thickness:
Look at a number of locations in the house (minimum 4, maximum 6)
(i.e. under drinkers and feeders, along the edges of the house and close
to the doorways) to check whether there is a big variation in litter
thickness across the house. If so, can you detect areas of litter which
differ in appearance, or is the litter very uniform? If areas are different,
then ensure that you sample using the method described from these
areas of differing litter to reflect overall variability in the house.
0 – Completely dry and flaky, i.e. moves easily with the foot
1 – Dry but not easy to move with foot
2 – Leaves imprint of foot and will form a ball if compacted, but ball does
not stay together well
3 – Sticks to boots and sticks readily in a ball if compacted
4 – Sticks to boots once the cap or compacted crust is broken
Dust sheet test
Management-based measure: Broiler chicken
23
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Animal unit
The dust sheet test is conducted using a sheet of black A4 size paper.
Put the paper onto a clip board and place it above bird height (i.e. to
prevent pecking by birds) on a horizontal surface, preferably away from
feed machinery. Position the paper when first entering the house. Then
remove the sheet at the end of the assessment (which will take an
approximately fixed time interval). Write with a finger on the paper to get
an impression of the amount of dust on the paper.
Classify the dust level found on the paper as follows:
a. None
b. Little
c. Thin covering
d. Lot of dust
e. Paper colour not visible
0 – No evidence of dust (score ‘a’)
1 – Minimal evidence of dust (score ‘b’ or ‘c’)
2 – Evidence of dust (score ‘d’ or ‘e’)
5.1A.2.2 Thermal comfort
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Panting
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Panting is defined as breathing rapidly in short gasps.
High temperatures will cause birds to pant – this is a natural response –
however, persistent panting indicates that the thermal environment is
not being maintained at a temperature which is comfortable for the birds
in the long term.
When a bird ‘pants’ it increases its respiratory rate to allow rapid
exchange of air to prevent overheating. The visible signs of panting are
that the birds often sit upright, open their beak and often make visible
respiratory movements.
Examine groups of birds at up to 5 well-distributed locations. If birds are
panting, count out 100 birds (do not disturb them and leave them sitting
where they are) and estimate how many of the 100 birds are panting.
Group level:
Percentage of the sample showing panting
Huddling
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
When birds are cool or cold, they will often group together into tight
groups, sitting closely alongside each other, often in ‘clumps’ with areas
of empty space in between. This huddling is usually distinct from the
normal ‘loose grouping’ that birds will show when resting. Huddling can
be a natural response to lower temperatures – however, long
maintained or persistent huddling indicates that the thermal environment
is not being maintained at a temperature which is comfortable for the
birds in the long term.
Huddling is less common than panting, as birds are usually kept
adequately warm due to their stocking density and their production of
metabolic heat. In free range unheated housing huddling may be more
commonly seen. It is however possible for bird to get cold in cold
24
weather or if the house temperature falls due to high ventilation rates.
Classification
Examine groups of birds at up to 5 well-distributed locations. If birds are
clearly huddled together, due to the difficulty in identifying groups of 100
birds, estimate what proportion of the flock is affected by huddling. In
some houses where gas brooders or heaters are used, it may be seen
that birds huddle in colder spots in the house. Estimate the proportion of
the whole flock engaged in this behaviour.
Group level:
Estimated percentage of flock showing huddling behaviour
5.1A.2.3 Ease of movement
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Stocking density
Resource-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
First calculate the total dimension of useable space in which birds are
2
kept in m and then divide it by number of birds present, according to
one of the two methods below (numbers or weight).
House area:
Measure internal dimensions of the house. If there is a farm statement
for the house area – do a simple check by measuring house length by
width to check that farm statement is correct. If the stated dimension of
a house seems reliable (there has been a previous credible inspection
which has measured available space) one may be able to use these
measures instead of re-measuring the house. If the assessor solely
relies on the stated estimate for space provided by the farm this can
sometimes be incorrect.
If no farm statement is available, measure house (length x width) and
subtract for house ‘furniture’ (feeders, drinkers, structural elements of
the building etc.) which reduce the space available to the animals.
It may also be possible to use ultrasound or laser measurers to increase
the speed of measurement (not good in dusty environments or bright
light).
Furthermore, a practical approach to measuring large houses is to
measure a bay (i.e. section) and multiply by the number of bays, or
measure one cage or nest module and multiply by the total number.
Number of animals:
Ask for mortality figures to calculate the number of actual birds. Look for
paper evidence of delivery numbers of birds, and, after slaughter, the
number of birds slaughtered, which should be quite accurate (as long as
traceability of batches is good).
Classification
Weight loading:
Animal weights at a given age are often calculated by the animal unit
manager by trial weighing a small number of birds. Some farms have
step on automatic weighers, which can give average weights for the
birds (however, small birds, sick birds, lame birds do not use the
weighers).
2
House area m
and
Average bird weight kg
and
25
Number of birds
5.1A.3 Good health
5.1A.3.1 Absence of injuries
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Lameness (gait score)
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Lameness is the inability to use one or both limbs in a normal manner.
It can vary in severity from reduced ability or inability to bear weight, to
total immobility.
For all farm visits, which are made close to slaughter age, 150 birds
approximately will be caught using a catching pen at random locations
generated by computer. For very flighty birds (for example some free
range birds) it may be necessary to catch small pens of birds. Each bird
is individually encouraged to walk out of the pen and is scored as it
does so.
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
For each bird caught, the gait score will be recorded. The flock average
gait score can be calculated by multiplying the number of birds in each
gait score category, then dividing the total by the total number of birds
scored. Birds are classified according to these criteria:
0. Normal, dextrous and agile
1. Slight abnormality, but difficult to define
2. Definite and identifiable abnormality
3. Obvious abnormality, affects ability to move
4. Severe abnormality, only takes a few steps
5. Incapable of walking
Individual level:
Number of animals in each scoring class (0,1,2,3,4,5)
and
Percentage of animals in each scoring class (0,1,2,3,4,5).
Hock burn
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Hock burn is a contact dermatitis found on the skin of the caudal (back)
part of the hock joint. The skin is turned dark by contact with litter and
consequently skin lesions can result. The scoring scale allows
assessment of the severity of these lesions (see photographic
reference).
Assess the presence of hock burns with regard to the severity scale.
Scoring categories 0/1/2/3/4 as photographic illustration. Assess the
number of animals in each scoring category and combine the categories
for classification.
Individual level:
a – No evidence of hock burn (score ‘0’)
b – Minimal evidence of hock burn (score ‘1’ and ‘2’)
c – Evidence of hock burn (score ‘3’ and ‘4’)
26
0
1
2
© Colas, ITAVI (Institut Technique de l‘aviculture France)
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
3
4
Foot pad dermatitis
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Foot pad dermatitis is a contact dermatitis found on the skin of the foot,
most commonly on the central pad, but sometimes also on the toes. The
skin is turned dark by contact with litter and consequently deep skin
lesions can result. The scoring scale allows an assessment of the
severity of these lesions (see photographic reference).
Assess the presence of hock burns with regard to the severity scale,
scoring categories 0/1/2/3/4 as photographic illustration. Assess the
number of animals in each scoring category and combine the categories
for classification.
Individual level:
a – No evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘0’)
b – Minimal evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘1’ and ‘2’)
c – Evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘3’ and ‘4’)
0
1
© A Butterworth, University of Bristol
2
3
4
5.1A.3.2 Absence of disease
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
On farm mortality
Management-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
Mortality is defined as the ‘uncontrolled’ death of animals (as distinct
from culling/euthanasia). The animals may die from, for example,
septicaemia, respiratory disease, acute infection or dehydration. Any
animal which is ‘found dead’ on the floor in the house, or out on the field
is considered a mortality.
27
The animal unit manager is asked about mortality management on the
farm based on data collected from farm records. Using house records of
animal numbers placed, minus number died (but not including those
actively culled, which are included in the measure ‘culls on farm’):
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Number of animals placed in house from the hatchery (A)
Total number of animals found dead in the last flock cycle (M).
Calculate the percentage mortality using the following equation:
Percentage of mortality = (M/A ) x 100
Farm level:
Percentage of mortality on farm during the last flock cycle
Culls on farm
Management-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
Culling is defined as birds which are actively and humanely killed by the
animal unit manager for disease control purposes, or for lameness,
sickness or disease. These are known as ‘culls’.
The animal unit manager is asked about mortality management on the
farm based on data collected from farm records.
Using house records of bird numbers placed, minus those actively
culled (but not including those found dead, which are included in the
measure ‘on farm mortality ’):
Number of birds placed in house from hatchery (A)
Total number of birds which were actively culled (but not including those
which died without being culled) during the flock cycle (C)
Classification
Calculate the percentage culled using
Percentage of culling = (C/A ) x100
Percentage culling
the
following
equation.
5.1A.3.3 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
This criterion is not applied in this situation.
5.1A.4 Appropriate behaviour
5.1A.4.1 Expression of social behaviours
As yet, no measure is developed for this criterion.
5.1A.4.2 Expression of other behaviours
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Cover on the range
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to§ 5.1A.5
Note that this measure is applicable to free range or extensive systems
only. If no free range area is present this measure is not applicable (and
will be recorded as 0%).
Cover on the range can be vegetation which the birds can use for cover
(e.g. deep grass, trees, maize) or manmade shelters (e.g. tents, roofs,
elevated camouflage nets, but not closed poultry houses). Cover offers
environmental variation to the birds and protection from aerial threats
and predators which are considered a restriction to birds’ use of the
28
range in some outdoor systems.
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Examine the free range area and estimate the percentage of free range
area that is covered by trees, bushes, or artificial shelters.
Estimate the proportion of the range which is covered – stand where the
entire range is visible, or ensure that the entire range is observed.
Calculate for 3 houses if there are multiple houses on the site. If houses
share an area of range without fences, then calculate for a ‘combined
flock’ if this is possible.
Flock level:
Estimated percentage of covered range
Free range
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
Note that this measure is applicable to free range or extensive systems
only. If no free range area is present this measure is not applicable (and
will be recorded as 0%).
This measure is an indicator of both the birds’ ability to choose the
environment in which it ranges, and also the suitability of the
environment for birds.
The proportion of birds using the range is taken as an estimate of the
entire percentage of the flock seen outside of the house.
Classification
Count (an approximation) the number of birds visible using the range
from one house (if multiple houses share the range, this may be more
complex). Stand where the entire range is visible, or ensure that the
entire range is observed. Calculate for 3 houses if there are multiple
houses on the site. If houses share an area of range without fences,
then calculate for a ‘combined flock’ if this is possible.
Calculate the percentage of the entire flock that uses the range at the
time of your visit according to the following method, from records of the
known number of birds in each area;
Percentage of birds using range = (Estimated number observed on
range / total placed excluding those lost to mortality or thinning) x 100
Flock level:
Estimated percentage of birds outdoors
5.1A.4.3 Good human–animal relationship
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Avoidance Distance Test (ADT)
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.1A.5
The assessor approaches a group of at least 3 birds in the litter area,
squats for 10 seconds and then counts the number of birds at arm’s
length (i.e. within 1 m of the observer). Every attempt to approach a
group of birds is considered as a trial, even if all birds from the group
withdraw from the approaching or squatting assessor.
Repeat the trial 21 times. Carry out the trial at a number of different
locations around the house to avoid repeat scoring of birds. Record the
number of birds within arm’s length at each trial.
Individual level:
Total number of birds in reach (Tr)
29
5.1A.4.4 Positive emotional state
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA)
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit (depending on number of observation points, see method
description)
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) considers the expressive
quality of how animals behave and interact with each other and the
environment i.e. their ‘body language’.
Select between one and eight observation points (depending on the size
and structure of the farm) that together cover the different areas of the
farm. Decide the order in which to visit these observation points, and
wait a few minutes to allow the animals to return to undisturbed
behaviour. Watch the animals that can be seen well from that point and
observe the expressive quality of their activity at group level. It is likely
that the animals will initially be disturbed, but their response to this can
be included in the assessment. Total observation time should not
exceed 20 minutes, and so the time taken at each observation point
depends on the number of points selected for a farm:
Number of observation
points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Duration of observation
per observation point in
minutes
10
10
6.5
5
4
3.5
3
2.5
When observation at all selected points has been completed, find a
quiet spot and score the 20 descriptors using the visual analogue scale
(VAS). Please note that scoring is not done during observation, and that
only one integrative assessment is made per farm.
Each VAS is defined by its left ‘minimum’ and right ‘maximum’ point.
‘Minimum’ means that at this point, the expressive quality indicated by
the term is entirely absent in any of the animals you have seen.
‘Maximum’ means that at this point this expressive quality is dominant
across all observed animals. Note that it is possible to give more than
one term a maximum score; animals could for example be both entirely
calm and content.
To score each term, draw a line across the 125 mm scale at the
appropriate point. The measure for that term is the distance in
millimetres from the minimum point to the point where the line crosses
the scale. Do not skip any term.
Please be aware when scoring terms that start with a negative pre-fix,
such as unsure or uncomfortable, that as the score gets higher, the
meaning of the score gets more negative, not more positive.
The terms used for the QBA broiler assessment are:
• Active
• Calm
• Friendly
• Relaxed
• Content
• Positively occupied
• Helpless
• Tense
• Scared
• Comfortable
• Inquisitive
• Drowsy
30
•
•
•
•
Classification
Fearful
Agitated
Confident
Depressed
•
•
•
•
Unsure
Energetic
Frustrated
Bored
•
•
•
Playful
Nervous
Distressed
Flock level:
Continuous scales for all body language parameters from minimum to
maximum.
5.1A.5 Sampling and practical information
Different numbers of animals must be sampled for different measures; these are summarized in
Table 3.
Table 3 Order for carrying out measures, sample size and time required for broiler chicken on
farm.
Measure
Sample method and/or number of birds Approximate time
to sample
required (min)
100 birds examined visually at up to 5
Panting
5
locations
100 birds examined visually at up to 5
Huddling
5
locations
Qualitative behaviour
Observations made at between 1 and 8
20
X
assessment (QBA)
points
21 sample sites, 10 seconds squatting at
Avoidance distance test (ADT)
each site + 30 seconds movement
20
between sites
Lameness
150 birds selected from 4 locations
40
Plumage cleanliness
Foot pad dermatitis
Hock burn
Litter quality
Stocking density
Drinker space
Dust sheet test
Cover on the range
Free range
On farm mortality
Culls on farm
100 birds picked up - 10 birds from 10
locations
5 areas in the house
Establish the total number of birds placed
(minus those died or culled) and divide by
the available area
Calculate number of drinkers x area per
drinker and divide by number of birds
placed
Position the dust test sheet at the start of
observation period and then assess at the
end
Group assessment on 3 houses (if
possible)
Group assessment on 3 houses (if
possible)
Establish number of birds found dead (not
culled) in relation to total number placed
Establish number of birds culled in relation
to total number placed
60 (combined total
for cleanliness,
foot pads, hock
burn)
10 total
(2 minutes per
area)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
31
195 minutes
(3 hrs. 15 min.)
X
Qualitative assessment: observation time per spot- 5 minutes in case of 4 spots and 10 minutes
in case of 2 spots
Total
Selecting broiler chicken for assessment on farm
• Birds are assessed in the last few days before slaughter. Consistent with the slaughter
timetable and possible planning it is recommended that birds are examined within 5 days of
slaughter.
• Gait scoring, panting, huddling and litter quality should be assessed in the same sites. The
assessor should look at between 4 and 6 areas in the house, selecting these areas to be well
distributed around the house and accounting for litter variability and thickness.
• The birds assessed for foot pad dermatitis, cleanliness and hock burns are taken from the
same sample group.
• For the hock burn, plumage cleanliness and foot pad dermatitis measures at least 100 broiler
chickens per flock should be assessed: 10 birds taken from 10 areas of the house including 2
areas located near to drinkers, 2 areas located near to feeders, 3 areas located near a wall, 3
areas located away from drinkers and feeders (resting area).
5.1B Collection of data for broiler chicken on farm (measured at slaughterhouse)
These measures are assessments of disease which are made at the slaughterhouse – but which
reflect disease conditions indicating the farm life of the bird and are not reflections of the
slaughter process. Therefore they are calculated together with the previous on farm assessment,
and jointly form the basis for the overall assessment for broiler chicken on farm.
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Welfare Criteria
1
Absence of prolonged hunger
2
Absence of prolonged thirst
3
Comfort around resting
4
Thermal comfort
5
Ease of movement
6
Absence of injuries
7
Absence of disease
8
Appropriate
behaviour
9
10
11
12
Absence of pain induced by
management procedures
Expression of social behaviours
Expression of other behaviours
Good human-animal
relationship
Positive emotional state
Measures
Emaciation
This criterion is measured at the farm
This criterion is measured at the farm
This criterion is measured at the farm
This criterion is measured at the farm
Breast blister, hock burn, foot pad
dermatitis
Ascites, dehydration, septicaemia,
hepatitis, pericarditis, abscess
This criterion is not applied in this
situation
As yet, no measure is developed
This criterion is measured at the farm
This criterion is measured at the farm
This criterion is measured at the farm
5.1B.1 Good feeding
5.1B.1.1 Absence of prolonged hunger
Title
Scope
Emaciation
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope according to § 5.1B.5)
Sample size
Method
description
Sample size according to § 5.1B.5
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house on emaciation of birds. Slaughterhouses will reject emaciated
birds as being unfit for human consumption.
32
Classification
By using data from slaughterhouse rejections it will be possible to
determine how many birds were rejected for emaciation (E) from the
total number slaughtered from the flock (n). Classify emaciation
according to the following calculation.
Emaciation percentage = (Number emaciated rejected (E) / Total
number slaughtered (n)) X100%
Flock level:
Percentage of emaciated birds
5.1B.1.2 Absence of prolonged thirst
This criterion is assessed at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.2 Good housing
5.1B.2.1 Comfort around resting
This criterion is assessed at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.2.2 Thermal comfort
This criterion is assessed at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.2.3 Ease of movement
This criterion is assessed at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.3 Good health
5.1B.3.1 Absence of injuries
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Breast blister
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope according to § 5.1B.5)
Sample size according to § 5.1B.5
Breast blisters are caused by dermatitis of the skin overlying the keel
(the central part of the breast area). The skin is softened and sometimes
discoloured and may be infected and ‘sticky,’ or show as a raised
blister.
Observe birds on the line for 5 to 10 minutes. Doing so will provide a
sample of n (line speed birds per minute (ls) x number of minutes (t)).
Record number of birds passing per minute (line speed birds/min (ls)).
Subsequently observe the birds where the breast is clearly visible after
plucking. Count number of birds with breast blister lesions (‘b’).
0 No evidence of breast blister
1 Evidence of breast blister
Classification
To classify use the calculation below, in which t = period of observation
(minutes), b = number of birds with breast blister lesion, ls = line speed
(birds per minute) and n = number of birds observed in total (t x ls).
Percentage of birds with breast blister = (b / n) x 100%
Individual level:
Percentage of birds with breast blister
33
0 No breast blister
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
1 Breast blister
Breast blister
before
incision
© A Butterworth, University of Bristol
Breast blister
after incision
Hock burn
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope according to § 5.1B.5)
Sample size according to § 5.1B.5
Hock burn is a contact dermatitis found on the skin of the caudal (back)
part of the hock joint. The skin is turned dark by contact with litter and
consequently skin lesions can result. The scoring scale allows
assessment of the severity of these lesions.
During three separate recording periods of five minutes, score a
proportion of the birds passing the observation point - this will provide a
sample of n (line speed birds per minute (ls) x number of minutes (t)).
Observe the birds where the hocks are clearly visible after plucking.
Record number of birds passing per minute. Count number of birds with
hock lesions (1/2/3/4) – use the scoring category in photographic
reference.
To classify use calculation below, in which t = period of observation
(minutes), H 0/1/2/3/4 = number of birds with hock burn lesion, ls = line
speed (birds per minute) and n = number of birds observed in total (t x
ls).
Percentage of birds with hock burn in each category = (H(0), H(1) etc…
/ n ) x 100%.
Assess the number of animals in each scoring category and combine
the categories for classification.
Individual level:
a – No evidence of hock burn (score ‘0’)
b – Minimal evidence of hock burn (score ‘1’ and ‘2’)
c – Evidence of hock burn (score ‘3’ and ‘4’)
34
a
b
b
c
c
© A Butterworth, University of Bristol
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Foot pad dermatitis
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken at slaughter (scope according to
§ 5.1B.5)
Sample size according to § 5.1B.5
Foot pad dermatitis is a contact dermatitis found on the skin of the foot,
most commonly on the central pad, but sometimes also on the toes. The
skin is turned dark by contact with litter and consequently deep skin
lesions can result. The scoring scale allows an assessment of the
severity of these lesions.
During three separate recording periods of five minutes, score a
proportion of the birds passing the observation point where the foot pad
is visible - this will provide a sample of n (line speed birds per minute (ls)
x number of minutes (t)).
Observe the birds where the bottom of the feet is clearly visible.
Record the number of birds passing per minute. Count the number of
birds with foot pad lesions (1/2/3/4) – use the scoring category in the
photographic reference.
If an automated camera system is used, three scores are reported – 0
(as 0 below), 1 (as 1 below), 2.
To classify use the calculation below, in which t = period of observation
(minutes), F 0/1/2/3/4 = number of birds with foot pad lesion, ls = line
speed (birds per minute) and n = number of birds observed in total (t x
ls).
Percentage of birds with foot pad lesions in each category = ( F(0), F(1)
etc../n) x 100%
Assess the number of animals in each scoring category and combine the
categories for classification.
Individual level:
a – No evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘0’)
b – Minimal evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘1’ and ‘2’)
c – Evidence of foot pad dermatitis (score ‘3’ and ‘4’)
Scale for manual (visual observation) at slaughterhouse
35
0
1
2
3
© A Butterworth, University of Bristol
4
5.1B.3.2 Absence of disease
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Ascites
Animal,- and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Ascites is an accumulation of tissue fluid in the lungs, air sacs and
abdomen resulting from cardiac insufficiency.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for ascites from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with ascites as being unfit for human
consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for ascites as
they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x = ascites)/total number
slaughtered in group (n)) x 100(%)
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with ascites
Dehydration
Animal-, and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Dehydration is a state in which the tissues of the bird become deficient
in water – usually as a result of disease making the bird unable to
access water supplies, but also potentially (more rarely) due to failure of
provision of water.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for dehydration from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with dehydration as being unfit for human
consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for
dehydration as they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x = dehydration)/total number
slaughtered in group (n)) x 100%
36
Classification
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with dehydration
Title
Scope
Septicaemia
Animal-, and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Septicaemia is a generalized infection of the tissues of the bird following
overwhelming infection. The internal organs become discoloured, with
localized visible areas of infection.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for septicaemia from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with septicaemia as being unfit for human
consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for
septicaemia as they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x = septicaemia)/total
number slaughtered in group (n)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with septicaemia
Hepatitis
Animal-, and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Hepatitis is a localized infection of the liver, often with visible changes to
the liver including discolouration, localised abcessation or infected areas
and fibrin formation.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for hepatitis from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with hepatitis as being unfit for human
consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for hepatitis as
they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x = hepatitis)/total number
slaughtered in group (n)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with hepatitis
Pericarditis
Animal-, and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Pericarditis is an inflammation of the tissue which surrounds the heart –
discoloration and thickening of this tissue (the pericardium) is visible on
the slaughter line, and is caused by infection or is associated with
37
ascites.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for pericarditis from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with pericarditis as being unfit for human
consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for pericarditis
as they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x - pericarditis)/total number
slaughtered in group (n)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with pericarditis
Abscess (sub-cutaneous pus)
Animal-, and management-based measure: Broiler chicken (scope
according to § 5.1B.5)
Animal unit
Abscess is a localized area of (usually bacterial) infection – resulting in
tissue damage or necrosis and production of pus or inflammatory
responses and visible as swollen areas, pus or areas of tissue
discolouration.
Using data from slaughter house rejection records (collected for public
health and disease monitoring purposes) it will be possible to determine
how many birds were rejected for abscess from the total number
slaughtered from the flock (n).
Collect information from the meat inspection team at the slaughter
house. They will reject birds with one or more abscesses as being unfit
for human consumption and will record the number of birds rejected for
abscess as they inspect them.
Percentage of each category = (nx (where x - abscess)/total number
slaughtered in group (n)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of animals with abscess
5.1B.3.3 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
This measure is not applied in this situation.
5.1B.4 Appropriate behaviour
5.1B.4.1 Expression of social behaviours
This criterion is measured at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.4.2 Expression of other behaviours
This criterion is measured at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.4.3 Good human–animal relationship
This criterion is measured at the farm (see §5.1A).
5.1B.4.4 Positive emotional state
This criterion is measured at the farm (see §5.1A).
38
5.1B.5 Sampling and practical information
Table 4 Order for carrying out measures, sample size and expected time required for farm broiler
chicken at slaughter.
Measure
Sample method or number of birds to
Time required
sample
(min)
Observe birds for 5 to 10 minutes (which
may represent up to 1200 birds at 120
Breast blisters
birds/min) – and calculate the percentage
10
of birds with breast blisters in this
observed group
2 separate sample periods of 5 min (which
may represent up to 500-1000), score
10
Hock burn
proportion with each category of hock burn
as percentage of whole
2 separate sample periods of 5 min (which
may represent up to 500-1000), score
10
Foot pad dermatitis
proportion with food pad dermatitis as
percentage of whole
Emaciation
Ascites
Dehydration
Data collected from existing meat hygiene
Septicaemia
inspection process (common across
10
Europe)
Hepatitis
Pericarditis
Abscess
Total time
40 minutes
Selecting broiler chicken for assessment
• Use the same selection of birds for the measures breast blisters, hock burn and foot pad
dermatitis.
• The other measures within the slaughterhouse assessment for broiler chicken can be derived
from slaughterhouse records.
5.2 Calculation of scores for broiler chicken on farm
5.2.1 Criterion scores
5.2.1.1 Absence of prolonged hunger
The % emaciated birds is calculated as
% emaciated birds = p =
Number of rejected birds due to emaciation
Number of birds from the house
× 100
p is used to calculated index I:
I = 0-100*(p - 6.5)/6.5)
with 6.5 being the lowest % emaciated birds resulting in a score 0
Then the index is transformed into a score with I-spline functions (Figure 5) as follows:
3
When I ≤ 80 then Score = (0.77643 x I) - (0.0094591 x I²) + (0.000081106 x I )
3
When I ≥ 80 then Score = - 2293.9+ (86.796 x I) - (1.0847 x I²) + (0.0045613 x I )
39
100
80
Score
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% emaciated birds
Figure 5 Calculation of scores for absence of hunger according to the proportion of emaciated
birds (x axis, 100(%emaciated birds – 6.5)/(6.5)).
5.2.1.2 Absence of prolonged thirst
The recommended number of birds for the number of water points is calculated from the number
of each type of water point, and the number of birds recommended per water point of each type
(r.):
(
) (
) (
nr ( x ) = nn ( x ) × rn + nb ( x ) × rb + nc ( x ) × rc
)
with
nn , number of nipples
nb , number of bells
nc , number of cups
and the recommended number of birds for each type of drinker being set at
rn = 10
rb = 100
rc = 28
The actual number of birds in the house (n) is compared to the recommended number of birds:
p=
nr
n
× 100
p represents the % of compliance of the house with the recommendation.
The following index is calculated:


x100 
 ( max − min )

I =
( p − min )
with min = 20% and max = 200% that can be observed (Corresponding to the number of birds
being 5 times less than the capacity of drinkers and twice more than that capacity).
40
Then the index is transformed into a score with I-spline functions (Figure 6) as follows:
3
When I ≤ 50 then Score = (0.047725 x I)+ (0.057212 x I²) - (0.00057530 x I )
3
When I ≥ 50 then Score = -98.409 + (5.9522 x I) - (0.060879 x I²) + (0.00021197 x I )
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% complia nce w ith re commenda tion
Figure 6 Calculation of scores for absence of thirst according to an index expressing the % of
compliance of the house with the recommended number of drinking places.
5.2.1.3 Comfort around resting
Three partial scores are calculated before being aggregated.
Cleanliness of birds
An index is calculated for the cleanliness of bird according to the % birds slightly dirty, moderately
dirty and dirty.
Index_cleanliness =  100 − 2(%slightlydirty ) + 7(% mod eratelydirty ) + 13(%dirty ) 
13


This index is then converted to a score according to the following I-spline functions (Figure 7):
3
When I ≤ 70 then Score = (1.0186 x I) - (0.014551 x I²) + (0.00012263 x I )
3
When I ≥ 70 then Score = -267.04 + (12.463 x I) - (0.17804 x I²) + (0.00090116 x I )
41
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% dirty birds (weighted for dirtiness)
Figure 7 Calculations of scores for cleanliness according to the % dirty birds (weights: 0.15, 0.54,
and 1 for birds slightly dirty, moderately dirty, and dirty).
Litter quality
A score is attributed to each location observed (max 10) as follows:
Level of ordinal scale for litter quality
Score
0
14
34
67
100
4 (Wet & sticky)
3
2
1
0 (Dry)
Then at farm level, the score is the worst score obtained on at least 15% locations (at least 15%
of locations obtain this score or a lower one).
Dust
Dust
Score
4 (Paper colour not visible)
3 (A lot of dust, some black paper visible)
2 (Thin covering of dust)
1 (Little dust)
0
20
53
78
0 (No dust, all paper visible)
100
Subcriterion-score
The three partial scores are combined using a Choquet integral with the following parameters
42
µ1
0.25
µ2
0.28
µ3
0.13
µ12
0.60
µ13
0.35
µ23
0.28
5.2.1.4 Thermal comfort
The proportion of birds panting and the proportion of birds huddling are assessed on up to five
locations. For each location, a score is attributed depending on the proportion of birds panting /
huddling:
Score
4 (all animals pant or huddle)
3 (more than half the animals pant or huddle)
2 (approximately half the animals pant or huddle)
1 (few animals pant or huddle)
19
29
39
69
0 (no animal pants or huddles)
100
*first we check if a 4 can be attributed, if not then we check if a 3 can be attributed, etc.
At farm level, the score is the worst score on at least 15% of locations (at least 15% of locations
obtain this score or a lower one).
5.2.1.5 Ease of movement
The stocking density (d) is used to calculate an index I:
I = ((100/(44-4)) x (44-d) = 2.5 x (44 - d)
where 44 and 4 represent the maximum and minimum stocking density that can be observed on a
farm.
I can only vary between 0 and 100 therefore
When d > 44
then I = 0
When d < 4
then I = 100
The index is turned into a score according to I-spline functions (Figure 8):
3
When I ≤ 30 then Score = (2.6077 x I) - (0.051672 x I²) + (0.00050863 x I )
3
When I ≥ 30 then Score = 12.019 + (1.4058 x I) - (0.011609 x I²) + (0.000063483 x I )
43
100
80
Score
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Stocking density (in comparison to minimum, 4 kg/m² and maximum, 44 kg/m²)
Figure 8 Calculation of scores for ease of movements according to stocking density.
5.2.1.6 Absence of injuries
Four partial scores are calculated before being integrated.
Breast blisters
The % of birds not affected by breast blisters is turned into a score using I-spline functions:
Let Ib = 100 - % birds with breast blisters
Ib is turned into a score Sb using I-spline functions (Figure 9):
3
When Ib ≤ 80 then Sb = (0.27267 x Ib) - (0.0026928 x Ib²) + (0.000031115 x Ib )
3
When Ib ≥ 80 then Sb = - 4386.9 + (164.78 x Ib) - (2.0591 x Ib²) + (0.0085993 x Ib )
100
80
Score
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% birds with breast blisters
Figure 9 Calculation of scores according to % birds with breast blisters.
44
Hock burns
The % birds moderately affected by hock burns (%hock1) and the % birds severely affected by
hock burns (%hock2) are used to calculate an index:
(%hock1) + 5(%hock 2 ) 

 100 −

5


Ih is turned into a score Sh using I-spline functions (Figure 10):
Ih =
3
When Ih ≤ 85 then Sh = (0.50649 x Ih) - (0.0059587 x Ih²) + (0.000063436 x Ih )
3
When Ih ≥ 85 then Sh = - 8279.7 + (292.73 x Ih) - (3.4439 x Ih²) + (0.013545 x Ih )
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% birds with hock burns (weighted for severity)
Figure 10 Calculation of scores according to % birds with hock burns (weights: 0.2 and 1 for
moderate and severe hock burns).
Foot pad dermatitis
The % birds moderately affected by foot pad dermatitis (%podo dermatitis1) and the % birds
severely affected by foot pad dermatitis (%podo dermatitis2) are used to calculate an index:
2(%pododermatitis1) + 7(%pododermatitis 2 ) 

 100 −

7


Ip is turned into a score Sp using I-spline functions (Figure 11):
Ip =
3
When Ip ≤ 70 then Sp = (0.50686 x Ip) - (0.0072409 x Ip²) + (0.000081315 x Ip )
3
When Ip ≥ 70 then Sp = - 513.33 + (22.507 x Ip) - (0.32152 x Ip²) + (0.0015779 x Ip )
45
100
80
Score
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% birds with pododermatitis (weighted for severity)
Figure 11 Calculation of scores according to % birds affected by foot pad dermatitis (weights:
0.29 for moderate and 1 for severe foot pad dermatitis).
Lameness
The % birds moderately lame (%lame1) and the % birds severely lame (%lame2) are used to
calculate an index:
(%lame1) + 5(%lame2 ) 

 100 −

5


Il is turned into a score Sl using I-spline functions (Figure 12):
Il =
3
When Il ≤ 80 then Sl = (0.28221 x Il) - (0.0029368 x Il ²) + (0.000041416 x Il )
3
When Il ≥ 80 then Sl = -3822.8 + (143.64 x Il) - (1.7949 x Il²) + (0.0075078 x Il )
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% lame birds (weighted for severity)
Figure 12 Calculation of scores according to % lame birds (weights: 0.2 and 1 for moderate and
severe lameness).
46
Subcriterion-score
The four subscores Sb, Sh, Sp, Sl are combined using a Choquet integral with the following
parameters:
µb
µh
µp
µl
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
µbh µbp µbl
0.24 0.00 0.23
µhp µhl
0.00 0.00
µpl
0.17
µbhp µbhl µbpl µhpl
0.46 0.50 0.40 0.17
5.2.1.7 Absence of disease
The symptoms are grouped into 5 categories, with 1 or 3 symptoms per category:
• ascites
• dehydration
• septicaemia, hepatitis, pericarditis
• abscesses
• mortality and culling
The following thresholds are defined for warnings and alarms:
Measure
Ascites (observed at
slaughterhouse)
Dehydration (observed at
slaughterhouse)
Septicaemia
Hepatitis / Jaundice (observed
at slaughterhouse)
Pericarditis (observed at
slaughterhouse)
Abscess / Subcutaneous pus
(observed at slaughterhouse)
Number of animals found dead
on farm, taking into account
culling:
Mortality when < 20%
due to culling
Mortality when 20% ≤ <
50% due to culling
Mortality when ≥ 50%
due to culling
Data
measured
Warning
T1,1
Alarm
T1,2
M0
0.5
1
M1
0.5
1
M2
0.75
1.5
M3
0.75
1.5
M4
0.75
1.5
M5
0.5
1
M6a
3
6
M6b
3.5
7
M6c
4
8
47
The incidence of each symptom is compared with the warning and alarm thresholds. These
thresholds depend on the incidence of disease symptoms. The thresholds for mortality depend on
the incidence of culling:
Within a category, a serious problem is recorded if the incidence of at least 1 symptom is above
the alarm threshold; a moderate problem is recorded if the incidence of at least 1 symptom is
above the warning threshold and none is above the alarm threshold; otherwise it is considered
that there is no problem.
An index I is calculated from the number of moderate problems and serious problems:
I=
 100 
5(warnings ) + 13( alarms )  
×5 −


13

 5 
where 5 is the number of disease categories.
I is turned into a score using I-spline functions as follows (Figure 13):
3
When I ≤ 60 then Score = (0.39746 x I) - (0.0056602 x I²) + (0.000082673 x I )
3
When I ≥ 60 then Score = -115.37 + (6.1659 x I) - (0.10180 x I²) + (0.00061679 x I )
100
80
Score
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Proportion of health problems (weighted for severity)
Figure 13 Calculation of scores for absence of diseases according to the proportion of symptoms
for which the incidence is above the warning or the alarm thresholds (weights: 0.38 for warnings
and 1 for alarms).
5.2.1.8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
No routine mutilations are performed in broilers. Therefore, whatever the farm, the scores for
absence of pain induced by management procedures, it is always 100.
5.2.1.9 Expression of social behaviours
As yet this criterion is not assessed for broilers.
48
5.2.1.10 Expression of other behaviours
The proportion of birds outdoors is estimated on a 5-level scale. Each level corresponds to a
score:
Proportion of bird outdoors
0%
Less than 50%
About 50%
More than 50%
100%
Score
13
44
66
82
95
5.2.1.11 Good human-animal relationship
The theoretical number of birds that should be within arm’s reach of the observer if the birds were
evenly spread in the barn is calculated from stocking density. This theoretical number is equal to
the stocking density (expressed in birds per m²) multiplied by π/2 (we divide by two the exact
surface of a circle which radius is 1 m, to cover for the space taken by the observer).
The number of birds that are actually within arm’s reach of the observer (i.e. within 1 m) is then
compared to that theoretical number of birds. An index representing the % birds within 1 m is
calculated:
I = 100 x (number of birds within arm’s reach / theoretical number of birds)
The index is turned into a score according to spline functions (Figure 14):
3
When I ≤ 20 then Score = 24.631+ (8.9944 x I) - (0.32423 x I²) + (0.0031378 x I )
-5
3
When I ≥ 20 then Score = 95.660 + (0.46453x I) - (0.014127 x I²) + (8.7479 x 10 x I )
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% birds within 1 m
Figure 14 Calculation of scores for good human-animal relationship according to the proportion of
birds within 1 m of the observer.
5.2.1.12 Positive emotional state
49
The values (between 0 and 125) obtained by a farm for the 22 terms of the Qualitative Behaviour
Assessment are turned into an index using a weighted sum:
20
Index = - 2.7938 + ∑ w k Nk
k =1
with
Nk, the value obtained by a farm for a given term k
wk, the weight attributed to a given term k
The weights of the various terms in this sum are issued from a Principal Component Analysis:
Terms
Active
Relaxed
Helpless
Comfortable
Fearful
Agitated
Confident
Depressed
Calm
Content
Tense
Inquisitive
Unsure
Energetic
Frustrated
Bored
Friendly
Positively Occupied
Scared
Drowsy
Playful
Nervous
Distressed
Weights
0.00593
0.00528
-0.04383
0.01274
-0.00295
-0.00148
0.00916
-0.01651
0.00449
0.01321
-0.00283
0.00625
-0.00114
0.00726
-0.01062
-0.01367
0.00676
0.01018
0.00011
-0.01105
0.00746
-0.00039
-0.03121
Finally this index is transformed into a score using I-spline functions (Figure 15) as follows:
When I ≤ 0
When I ≥ 0
then
then
Score = - (10 x I) – (1.25 x I²)
Score = 50 + (11.667 x I) – (0.55556 x I²)
In addition the score can vary only between 0 and 100. Therefore:
• if a calculation gives a value below 0 then Score = 0
• if a calculation gives a value above 100 then Score = 100
50
100
Score
80
60
40
20
0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Qualitative behaviour assessment
Figure 15 Calculation of scores for positive emotional state according to the values the farm
obtained for the various terms used in Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (combined in a
weighted sum).
5.2.2 Principle-scores
Criterion-scores are combined to form principle-scores using Choquet integrals.
The parameters of the integrals are given below for each principle.
Principle Good feeding
µ1
µ2
0.09
0.26
with 1, Absence of prolonged hunger and 2, Absence of prolonged thirst.
Principle Good housing
µ3
0.20
µ4
0.18
µ5
0.23
µ34
µ35
µ45
0.20
0.33
0.26
with 3, Comfort around resting; 4, Thermal comfort; 5, Ease of movement.
Principle Good health
µ6
0.06
µ7
0.19
µ8
0.10
µ67
µ68
µ78
0.34
0.17
0.19
with 6, Absence of injuries; 7, Absence of disease; 8, Absence of pain induced by
managementprocedures.
Principle Appropriate behaviour
51
µ9
0.11
µ10
0.09
µ11
0.10
µ910
0.14
µ911
0.11
µ912
0.17
µ1011
0.19
µ1012
0.19
µ1112
0.24
µ12
0.16
µ91011
µ91012
µ91112
µ101112
0.55
0.51
0.46
0.50
with 9, Expression of social behaviours; 10, Expression of other behaviours; 11, Good humananimal relationship; 12, Positive emotional state.
Expression of social behaviour is not directly assessed in broilers in the present assessment (but
may be assessed in future developments). The missing criterion-score is replaced by the best
score among other related measures - a) Expression of other behaviours, b) Good humananimal relationship, and c) Positive emotional state.
Due to the positive values of the interactions between criterion-scores, principle-scores are
always intermediate between the lowest and the highest values obtained at criterion level, and
closer to the minimum value.
Within each principle, some criteria are considered more important than others (and will
contribute to a large extent to the principle-score):
• Within principle “Good feeding”, Criterion “Absence of prolonged thirst” is considered
more important than Criterion “Absence of prolonged hunger”.
• Within principle “Good housing”, Criterion “Ease of movement” is considered more
important than Criterion “Comfort around resting”, which in turn is considered more
important than Criterion “Thermal comfort”.
• Within principle “Good health”, Criterion “Absence of disease” is considered more
important than Criterion “Absence of injuries” which in turn is considered more important
than Criterion “Absence of pain induced by management procedures”.
• Within principle “Appropriate behaviour”, Criterion “Expression of other behaviours” and
Criterion “Positive emotional state” are considered slightly more important than Criterion
“Good human-animal relationship” which in turn is considered more important than
Criterion “Expression of social behaviours”.
Examples of principle-scores resulting from criterion-scores are provided in Tables 5 to 8 below.
Table 5 Examples of scores for “Good feeding” according to combinations of Criterion-scores for
“Absence of prolonged hunger” and “Absence of prolonged thirst”
Principle
Criteria
Absence of prolonged
hunger
Absence of prolonged
thirst
Good feeding
25
40
50
60
75
75
60
50
40
25
38
45.2
50
41.8
29.5
52
Table 6 Examples of scores for “Good housing” according to combinations of Criterion-scores for
“Comfort around resting”, “Thermal comfort”, and “Ease of movement”
Principle
Criteria
Comfort around
resting
Thermal comfort
Ease of movement
Good housing
25
50
75
37
25
75
50
36
50
25
75
39
75
25
50
38
50
50
50
50
50
75
25
35
75
50
25
35
Table 7 Examples of scores for “Good health” according to combinations of Criterion-scores for
“Absence of injuries”, “Absence of disease”, and “Absence of pain induced by management
procedures”.
Principle
Criteria
Absence of injuries
Absence of disease
Absence of pain induced by
management procedures
Good health
25
50
75
32
25
75
50
35
50
25
75
32
75
25
50
31
50
50
50
50
50
75
25
38
75
50
25
35
Table 8 Examples of scores for “Appropriate behaviour” according to combinations of Criterionscores for “Expression of social behaviours”, “Expression of other behaviours”, “Good humananimal relationship”, and “Positive emotional state”.
Principle
Criteria
Expression of
Expression of other
social behaviours
behaviours
Good human-animal
relationship
Appropriate
behaviour
35
35
65
Positive
emotional state
65
35
65
35
65
41
35
65
65
35
41
65
35
35
65
40
65
35
65
35
38
65
65
35
35
39
42
5.2.3 Overall assessment
The synthesis of the four principle-scores into an overall assessment is done similarly for all
animal types. The overall assessment is explained in Chapter 4.
53
5.3 Collection of data for broiler chicken at slaughterhouse
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Appropriate
behaviour
Welfare Criteria
1
Absence of prolonged hunger
2
Absence of prolonged thirst
3
Comfort around resting
4
Thermal comfort
5
Ease of movement
6
Absence of injuries
7
Absence of disease
Absence of pain induced by
8
management procedures
9
Expression of social behaviours
10
Expression of other behaviours
11
Good human-animal relationship
Measures
Feed withdrawal time
Water withdrawal time
As yet, no measure is developed
Panting on lorry and/or lairage
Stocking density in crates
Wing damage, bruising
Dead on arrival (DOA)
Pre-stun shock, effectiveness of
stunning
This criterion is not applied in this
situation
This criterion is not applied in this
situation
This criterion is not applied in this
situation
12
Positive emotional state
Flapping on the line
5.3.1 Good feeding
5.3.1.1 Absence of prolonged hunger
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Feed withdrawal time
Resource-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
This measure is derived from farm and transport records (records of
time taken to load and transport the birds, which are kept by the
slaughterhouse on arrival). Record the duration of feed withdrawal at
three levels;
1. Period of non-feeding before catching (on-farm) T(f)
2. Period of non-feeding during transport T(t)
3. Period of non-feeding during lairage T(l)
The total period of feed withdrawal is composed of on-farm withdrawal
time T(f) + transport time T(t) + period whilst held in lairage T(l).
Calculation goes according to this; Total feed withdrawal time - T(f) +
T(t) + T(l)
Time (minutes)
5.3.1.2 Absence of prolonged thirst
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Water withdrawal time
Resource-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
This measure is derived from farm and transport records (records of
time taken to load and transport the birds), which are kept by the
slaughterhouse on arrival.
Record the duration of water withdrawal at three levels;
1. Period of water withdrawal before catching (on-farm) Tw(f)
2. Period of water withdrawal during transport Tw(t)
3. Period of water withdrawal during lairage Tw(l)
54
Classification
The total period of water withdrawal is composed of on-farm withdrawal
time Tw(f) + transport time Tw(t) + period whilst held in lairage Tw(l).
Calculation goes according to this;
Total water withdrawal time - Tw(f) + Tw(t) + Tw(l)
Time (minutes)
5.3.2 Good housing
5.3.2.1 Comfort around resting
As yet, no measure is developed.
5.3.2.2 Thermal comfort
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Panting on lorry and/or lairage
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
Panting is defined as breathing rapidly in short gasps.
High temperatures will cause birds to pant – this is a natural response –
however, persistent panting indicates that the thermal environment is
not being maintained at a temperature which is comfortable for the birds
in the long term.
When a bird ‘pants’ it increases its respiratory rate to allow rapid
exchange of air to prevent overheating. The visible signs of panting are
that the birds often sit upright, open their beak and often make visible
respiratory movements.
Observe 20 crates of birds from the front, middle and back of the lorry
(or from a stack of crates in the lairage). Calculate the number of birds
per crate. Multiply by number of crates observed. Count the number of
birds panting in the crates assessed.
Percentage of birds panting = ((number of birds seen panting)/(Number
of birds per crate x Number of crates assessed)) x100%
Group level:
Percentage of birds panting on lorries and lairage
5.3.2.3 Ease of movement
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Stocking density in crates
Resource-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
Measure 1 crate of uniform size. Count birds in 10 crates to create
average number of birds per crate.
2
Measure the crate dimensions (m x m) = calculate area in m .
Subsequently record average bird weight (kg) and the number of birds
per crate (n).
Bird stocking density during transport = (Birds per crate(n) x average
2
bird weight (kg)) / crate area m .
Average bird weight (kg)
and
2
Area of average crate (m )
and
2
Stocking density in crates (kg/m )
5.3.3 Good health
5.3.3.1 Absence of injury
55
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Wing damage (fractures)
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
This measure assesses injury due to catching, transport and removal
from transport crates. Wing damage can be identified by visible
‘dropped wings’ on the slaughter transport line. In this case the wing is
clearly hanging down indicating fracture or dislocation.
Sample wing damage from moving line at the slaughter house. Sample
size can be up to the entire flock.
Observe the birds just after ‘hang on’. Record the number of birds
passing per minute (line speed birds/min). Count number of birds with
‘dropped wings’ (Z). Then calculate the percentage of birds with wing
damage according to the total flock assessed.
Percentage of birds with damaged wing = ((Number of birds observed
(Z)) / (Line speed x number of minutes of observation)) x 100
Individual level:
Percentage of birds with damaged wings
Bruising
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
This measure assesses the bruising visible on the carcasses,
distinguished from post mortem carcase damage (which will not have
caused haemorrhage into the tissues).
Sample from the moving line at the slaughter house at a position where
the thigh, back, and legs of the bird are clearly visible. Sample size can
be up to the entire flock. Observe the birds after plucking, or at the first
available point where the whole (uncut) carcase can be observed.
Record the number of birds passing per minute (line speed birds/min)
and count number of birds with bruising (R).
Percentage of birds with bruising = ((Number of birds observed (R)) /
(Line speed x number of minutes of observation)) x 100
Individual level:
Percentage of birds with bruising
5.3.3.2 Absence of disease
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Dead On Arrival (DOA)
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Animal unit
Mortality is the ‘uncontrolled’ death of birds (as distinct from culling) –
birds may die from, for example- septicaemia, respiratory disease, acute
infection, dehydration. Any bird which is ‘found dead’ in the crate at
unloading is considered a mortality.
Determine the number of birds to be slaughtered in a group, or the total
number of birds to be delivered from the farm (n) from available records.
Subsequently calculate total number of birds arriving dead after
transport (D), by counting number of birds placed in the ‘dead on arrival’
bin.
Percentage DOA = (total number of dead birds after transport (D) / total
number in batch or flock (n)) x 100%
56
Classification
Flock level:
Percentage of birds DOA
5.3.3.3 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Pre-stun shocks
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
A ‘pre-stun shock’ occurs when a bird receives a premature electrical
shock from the stunning bath. This can occur when the bird’s head or
wing touches splashed water or wet surfaces (electrified) at the very
start of the entrance to the stunner. The bird will make avoidance
movements and often flap and vocalize – this will prevent the bird
affected from being effectively stunned and may also cause other birds
to react.
Sample from the moving line after ‘hang on’ and at the entrance to the
stunning bath at the slaughter house. Record number of birds passing
per minute (ls) (line speed birds/min).
Count number of birds which show avoidance movements, flapping or
vocalisation when they touch the entrance ramp to the stunner (nsc).
Percentage of birds experiencing pre-stun shock = (Number of birds
observed with pre-stun shock (nsc)) / (Line speed (ls) x number of
minutes of observation (t)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of birds receiving a pre-stun shock
Effectiveness of stunning
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
At the stunner exit, the main body posture should be examined.
Two types of stunning are considered here, these are:
Electrical stunning:
Unconsciousness is achieved through an epileptic seizure. At the
stunner exit the behavioural signs of this include:
• Neck arched with head directed vertically
• Open eyes
• Wings held closely to the body
• Rigidly extended legs and constant rapid body tremors
• No rhythmic breathing and no movement around the abdominal
vent area
Gas stunning:
Birds stunned with gas will be fully relaxed, with closed eyes and no
body tremor if stunned properly.
Classification
Observe the birds from the moving line at the exit of the electrical water
bath, and after the automatic or manual neck cutter. Record the number
of birds passing per minute (ls) (line speed birds/min). Count the
number of birds which show evidence of ineffective stunning (nis).
Percentage of birds ineffectively stunned = (Number of birds observed
ineffectively stunned (nis)) / (Line speed (ls) x number of minutes of
observation (t)) x 100%
Flock level:
57
Percentage of birds ineffectively stunned
5.3.4 Appropriate behaviour
5.3.4.1 Expression of social behaviours
This measure is not applied in this situation.
5.3.4.2 Expression of other behaviours
This measure is not applied in this situation.
5.3.4.3 Good human-animal relationship
This measure is not applied in this situation.
5.3.4.4 Positive emotional state
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Flapping on the line
Animal-based measure: Broiler chicken
Sample size according to § 5.3.5
Birds may flap their wings vigorously particularly where the line makes
abrupt changes of direction.
Observe the birds just after ‘hang on’ and record number of birds
showing vigorous flapping. Record the number of birds passing per
minute (ls) (line speed birds/min). Count the number of birds which
show flapping (nf).
Percentage of birds flapping on line = ((Number of birds observed (nf)) /
(Line speed (ls) x number of minutes of observation (t)) x 100%
Flock level:
Percentage of birds showing flapping on the line
5.3.5 Sampling and practical information
Table 9 Order for carrying out measures, sample size and time required for broiler chicken at
slaughter.
Measure
Sample method and/or number of birds
Time required
to sample
(min)
Whole flock - Take times from farm and
Feed withdrawal time
5
transport records
Whole flock - Take times from farm and
Water withdrawal time
5
transport records
Measure 1 crate to establish crate size,
count birds in 10 crates selected from
Stocking density in crates
10
across lorry, calculate average stocking
density
Observe 20 crates from the front, 20 from
the middle and 20 from the back of the
Panting on lorry and/or lairage
lorry (giving a total of 60 crates) and for
10
each crate estimate the proportion of birds
panting
Observe birds passing on the line for 5 to
10 minutes. Calculate the number of birds
Flapping on the line
10
showing flapping behaviour as a
percentage of the total observed
Observe birds passing on the line for a
Wing damage
minimum of 10 minutes up to entire flock
10
and calculate the number of birds showing
58
Pre-stun shocks
Effectiveness of stunning
Bruising
Dead on Arrival (DOA)
hanging wing or fractures as a percentage
of the total observed
Observe birds passing on the line for 5 to
10 minutes. Calculate the number of birds
showing pre-stun shocks as a percentage
of the total observed
Observe birds passing on the line for 5 to
10 minutes and calculate the number of
birds showing signs of incomplete
stunning as a percentage of the total
observed
Observe the whole (uncut) carcass
passing the line for 5 to 10 minutes and
calculate the number of birds showing
signs of bruising associated with catching,
transport or hanging.
Whole flock - Ask to see the records for
the total number of birds hung alive on the
shackles and those discarded as dead on
arrival
Total
10
10
10
5
85 minutes
(1 hour 25 min)
5.4 Calculation of scores for broiler chicken at slaughterhouse
Not included in the protocol at the moment.
59
6 Welfare Quality® applied to laying hens
The assessment of welfare is a multi–disciplinary process since assessment of a variety of
different parameters can provide a more comprehensive assessment of an animal’s welfare in
®
any given system. To this end, the Welfare Quality project utilizes physiological, health and
behavioural adaptations to assess the welfare of laying hens on farm.
In this chapter, a description of each measure for laying hens is given, followed by additional
information about the sample size and the order in which the different measures have to be
carried out.
Before commencing farm visits, assessors will have been fully trained in all the measures that are
to be assessed with the aid of photographs and video clips. For some of the health measures,
this involves being able to recognize symptoms of certain conditions/diseases; however it is
imperative that this document is not used as a diagnostic tool to identify individual health
conditions, but rather as a tool to highlight the presence of health problems affecting the welfare
of animals. The assessor should not enter into discussions with the animal unit manager on the
prevalence or severity of different diseases on their farm; this is a matter for the animal unit
manager and the herd veterinarian.
Trained assessors will use either animal–based, management-based or resource–based
measures to achieve a representative assessment of laying hen welfare of each farm. Many
different measures are assessed, and many are scored according to a three–point scale ranging
from 0 – 2. The assessment scales have been selected so that a score 0 is awarded where
welfare is good, a score 1 is awarded (where applicable) where there has been some
compromise on welfare, and a score 2 is awarded where welfare is poor and unacceptable. In
some cases a binary (0/2, i.e. Yes/No) or a continuous scale (e.g. cm) is used.
The assessor should prepare and start the visit according to the description provided in Annex A
(‘Guidelines for visit to the animal unit’). Data can be recorded with aid of Annex B (‘Recording
Sheets’).
6.1 Collection of data for laying hens on farm
Good feeding
Good housing
Good health
Welfare Criteria
Absence of prolonged
1
hunger
Absence of prolonged
2
thirst
3
Comfort around resting
4
5
Thermal comfort
Ease of movement
6
Absence of injuries
7
Absence of disease
8
Appropriate
behaviour
9
Absence of pain induced
by management
procedures
Expression of social
behaviours
Measures
Feeder space
Drinker space
Shape and total length of available perches,
evidence of red mites, dust sheet test
Panting, huddling
Stocking density, perforated floors
Keel bone deformation, skin lesions, foot pad
dermatitis, toe damage
On farm mortality, culls on farm, enlarged
crops, eye pathologies, respiratory infections,
enteritis, parasites, comb abnormalities
Beak trimming
Aggressive behaviour, plumage damage,
comb pecking wounds
60
10
Expression of other
behaviours
Use of nest boxes, use of litter, enrichment
measures, free range, cover on the range,
covered veranda
11
Good human-animal
relationship
Avoidance distance test (ADT)
12
Positive emotional state
Novel object test (NOT), qualitative behaviour
assessment (QBA)
6.1.1 Good feeding
6.1.1.1 Absence of prolonged hunger
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Feed space (per bird)
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Calculate the total number or length of available feeders according to
feeder type. First the assessor should note down the type of feeder
(pan, track or chain), to be able to interpret the feed space per bird round feeder or a straight feeder.
Pan feeders:
Calculate the circumference of one pan (cm), multiply by the number of
pans and divide by total bird numbers.
Classification
Track or chain feeders:
When possible measure the length of one ‘side’ and the length of the
‘end’, exclude areas which the birds cannot reach (including corners)
and then multiply by the number of loops or tracks to give a total length.
For feed troughs that can be reached from 2 sides multiply length by 2.
Then divide the total feed length by number of hens present at moment
of monitoring.
Length of feed space (cm)
and
Number of birds in the house
6.1.1.2 Absence of prolonged thirst
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Drinker space (birds per drinker)
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Calculate the total number or length of available drinkers in the house
according to drinker type. First the assessor should note down the type
of drinker to be able to interpret the drinker space per bird.
Drinker points:
Calculate the number of drinker points in one row and multiply by the
number of lines. Divide the total number of drinker points by the total
number of animals (to give birds per drinker).
Nipples:
Calculate nipples per meter and then multiply by total track length.
Divide by the total number of animals (to give birds per nipple).
Bell drinkers:
Calculate the circumference of one bell, multiply this by the number of
61
bells and divide by number of hens present at the time of monitoring (to
give cm per animal).
Classification
The result can be expressed in two ways, depending upon whether the
farm has nipples/cups or bell drinkers.
Number of birds in the house
and
Number of available nipples
and
Space available at drinkers in cm/animal
6.1.2 Good housing
6.1.2.1 Comfort around resting
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Shape and total length of available perches
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
First examine the perches for shape. Record if any of the perches have
sharp edges (e.g. wooden, rectangular perches are considered to have
sharp edges, but not if the edges are rounded; round or mushroomshaped perches are considered to have no sharp edges).
Then examine if more than 50% of the perches are positioned in a
specific resting zone. A resting zone can be created with A-frames with
perches or a perch area on top of a multi-level system (the resting zone
may be contain water lines, but is usually without feeders). Calculate the
total length of available and accessible perches in the house to be
examined.
A-frames with perches:
Calculate the number of perches per A-frame, multiply by length of Aframe and number of A-frames to calculate total perch length in the
house.
Multi-level systems:
Measure the length of one perch on a floor, multiply by number of
perches present on all floors to assess total perch length.
Cages:
Measure the total perch length in one cage and multiply by number of
cages present in the house.
Classification
Perch length per bird
Divide the total perch length by the total number of hens present at the
time of assessment to calculate the perch length per bird (cm per
animal).
0 – No sharp edges on perch
2 – Presence of sharp edges on perch
and
0 – More than 50% of the perch length is positioned in a resting zone
2 – From 0 to 50% of the perch length is positioned in a resting zone
and
Perch space per bird in cm per bird
62
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Evidence of Red Mites
Animal- and resource-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Examine both the equipment in the house and actual birds for red mites
(Dermanyssus gallinae). Common mite infestation sites are under
perches and in cracks and crevices. See photographic reference.
Red mites can often be found by scraping in cracks and crevices with a
sharp implement. Another way to find mites is to hold a piece of white
paper underneath the wire floor or perch and to knock on it, any red
mites will then fall onto the paper and can be seen. Severe infestations
can be seen clearly as ‘clumps’ of mites bunched together. Severe
infestations can also be seen as blood spotting on eggs.
Furthermore inspect the birds for presence of red mites by checking the
comb, legs and breast skin- and check dead birds if they are present.
Combine all of the findings of the inspection of the birds and the house
into one score.
0 – No red mites detectable on birds and in the house
1 – Red mites found on birds or in the house, but not in large numbers
and not clearly visible (e.g. no or few mites found on hens, and mites
found in the house are hidden in cracks and crevices but not in many
places and not in large quantities)
2 – Large quantities of red mites found on birds and/or in the house
(e.g. large numbers of mites are evident)
Red mite (Dermanyssus Gallinae)
Clearly visible clutches of mites
© NOTE: no copyright present
Title
Scope
Sample size
Severe infestation of red mites, clearly
visible clutches of mites
Blood spots on an egg
Dust sheet test
Management-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
63
Method
description
Classification
The dust sheet test is conducted using a black A4 size paper. Choose a
spot that is in the area the birds live in, but not too close to feed hoppers
or other equipment that causes dust. The paper should also be out of
reach of the birds. Position the black paper when you first enter the
house – and then remove the sheet at the end of the assessment. Write
with a finger on the paper to get an impression of the amount of dust on
the paper. Classify the dust level found on the paper as follows:
a None
b Little
c Thin covering
d Lot of dust
e Paper colour not visible
0 – No evidence of dust (score ‘a’)
1 – Minimal evidence of dust (score ‘b’ or ‘c’)2 – Evidence of dust (score
‘d’ or ‘e’)
6.1.2.2 Thermal comfort
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Panting
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Panting is defined as breathing respiration in short gasps.
High temperatures will cause birds to pant – this is a natural response –
however, persistent panting indicates that the thermal environment is
not being maintained at a temperature which is comfortable for the birds
in the long term.
When a bird ‘pants’ it increases its respiratory rate to allow rapid
exchange of air to prevent overheating. The visible signs of panting are
that the birds often sit upright, open their beak and often make visible
respiratory movements.
Estimate the percentage of animals of the total flock that perform
panting behaviour, based on inspection of the whole flock (e.g. both at
the back of the house, halfway and at the front of the house). Make a
flock walk at the start of the protocol, halfway through the
measurements in the hen house and at the end of the assessments in
the hen house recording the percentage of animals panting after each
walk.
Flock level:
Percentage of birds showing panting
Huddling
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
When birds are cool or cold, they will often group together into tight
groups, sitting closely alongside each other, often in ‘clumps’ with areas
of empty ground in between, this is defined as huddling.
Huddling can be a natural response to lower temperatures, however,
long periods of or persistent huddling indicates that the thermal
environment is not being maintained at a temperature which is
comfortable for the birds in the long term.
Huddling is less common than panting as birds are usually kept
adequately warm due to their stocking density and their highly insulating
feather cover. It is however possible for birds to get cold in cold weather
64
or at cold spots in the house due, for instance, to cold drafts.
The birds will often choose warmer sites in the house to ‘huddle’ – near
to patches of warm air. This huddling is usually distinct from the normal
‘loose grouping’ that birds will show when resting. Only count birds that
huddle due to thermal reasons. Do not count birds that pile up for
unknown reasons.
Classification
Estimate the percentage of animals of the total flock that perform
huddling behaviour, based on inspection of the whole flock. Make a
flock walk at the start of the protocol, halfway through the assessment in
the hen house and at the end of the assessments in the hen house and
record the percentage of animals huddling.
Flock level:
Percentage of birds huddling
6.1.2.3 Ease of movement
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Stocking density
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Examine both litter and slatted floor area in the house, i.e. the total
space in the house that is permanently accessible for the birds, which is
assessed according to available reported information or is calculated
based on available litter area and slatted floor area.
Availability of official reports:
In case of the availability of official reports of local authorities, use the
available space indicated in these reports.
Litter space and systems with slatted floors:
Measure the total available litter space and total available slatted area
2
(length x width in m ). Space taken by "furniture" (feeders, drinkers,
perches) is not usually subtracted from the total available space. Nest
space is not calculated as available space. Only count space that is
permanently available to the birds, thus free range area is not taken into
account, but a covered veranda area can be included in the calculation
if this area is permanently available.
Cage houses and systems with slatted floors:
It may be possible to measure a cage or section and multiply this by the
number of cages / sections present. Platforms are calculated as
available space if they are at least 30 cm wide.
Classification
Divide the total available space by the total number of hens in the house
2
examined (cm per animal).
2
cm / animal
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Perforated floors (% of available space)
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Examine the amount of all perforated floor area (wooden or plastic
slatted area or areas of netting) in relation to total available space.
Calculate the percentage of perforated floor by dividing the total area of
65
Classification
perforated floor by the total available space (slatted and litter floor).
Examine the type of perforated floor. Estimate the percentage of
perforated floors consisting of wire mesh.
Percentage of slatted floor of total available space
and
Percentage of perforated floors consisting of wire mesh
6.1.3 Good health
6.1.3.1 Absence of injuries
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Keel bone deformation
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Keel bones are normally straight without dips, bulbs, deviation or other
palpable abnormality. Abnormalities can be caused by badly shaped
perches, healed breaks (fractures) or by decalcification of the keel. A
keel bone deformation is any abnormality from the normal straight
shape of the keel.
Examine the breast of the hen by looking at it (in case of featherless
breast) or by running fingers alongside and over the keel bone.
Collection of birds for assessment can be made by either penning
(corralling) birds or by picking up individual birds in several areas of the
henhouse. The number of places to collect hens is dependent on the
housing system and the number of compartments. Pick up a bird from
within the penned group or from the litter or slatted floor, inspect the
keel area visually and palpate the area. In cage systems take the birds
from different areas of the house and from different tier levels. Compare
to the photographic reference and assess according to the following:
0 – No deviations, deformations or thickened sections, keel bone
completely straight
2 – Deviation or deformation of keel bone (including thickened sections)
Flock level:
Percentage of birds in the flock in each category (0,2)
© Center: Staack, University of Kassel, © Left and right:Fiks-van Niekerk, WUR
66
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Skin lesions
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Skin lesions are wounds that have not yet healed. Little wounds in a
shape of punctiform pecks (holes) or scratches are not considered as
lesions, but if there are 3 or more pecks and/or scratches then these are
taken into account.
Examine the rear and legs of the hen for presence of skin lesions.
Pick up a bird from within the penned group or from the litter or slatted
floor. Examine the rear end and the legs of the hen. Lift the feathers to
examine the skin. The number of places to collect hens is dependent on
the housing system and the number of compartments. In cage systems
take the birds from different areas of the house and from different tier
levels. Assess the individual birds according to the following:
0 – No lesions, only single (<3) pecks (punctiform damage <0.5 cm
diameter) or scratches
1 – At least one lesion <2 cm diameter at largest extent or ≥3 pecks or
scratches
2 – At least one lesion ≥2 cm diameter at largest extent
Flock level:
Percentage of birds in the flock in categories 0,1,2
Foot pad dermatitis
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
The feet of hens should have smooth skin without any wounds or
abnormalities. Wire floors can cause hard patches or other proliferations
(thickening) of the epithelium. Inflammation or skin damage can cause a
swelling of the foot, called bumble foot. This starts with a minor swelling,
but can finally result in very swollen balloon-shaped feet. Although this
inflammation can heal during the flock cycle, these lesions can cause
distress to the bird.
The cause of bumble foot is not completely clear, but perch design,
hygiene and genotype may have an influence.
Pick up a bird from within the penned group or from the litter or slatted
floor. In cage systems take birds from different areas of the house and
from different tier levels: Examine both feet of the hen and choose the
foot with the worst condition to score according to the following:
0 – Feet intact, no or minimal proliferation of epithelium
1 – Necrosis or proliferation of epithelium or chronic bumble foot with no
or moderate swelling
2 – Swollen (dorsally visible)
Flock level:
Percentage of the flock in each scoring category 0,1,2
67
1: proliferation of epithelium
© Keppler, University of Kassel
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
2: bumble foot (dorsally visible)
Toe damage
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Due to poor equipment design toes can be trapped and injured (or even
torn off). Toe damage is defined as wounds on one or more toes and/or
missing (parts of) one or more toes.
100 birds are examined and information from these birds will be
included in the final score.
The final score is based on both the inspection of 100 birds ans visual
observations during other work in the hen house and the number of
birds with toe damage assessed.
The classification reflects the number of birds with toe damage.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of damaged toes
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with damaged toes
2 – 3 or more birds with damaged toes
6.1.3.2 Absence of disease
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
On farm mortality
Management-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Mortality is defined as the ‘uncontrolled’ death of animals (as distinct
from culling/euthanasia). The animals may die from, for example,
septicaemia, respiratory disease, acute infection or dehydration. Any
animal which is ‘found dead’ in the house, or out on the field is
considered a mortality.
The animal unit manager is asked about mortality management on the
farm based on data collected from farm records. Using house records of
animal numbers placed, died and culled:
Number of animals placed in house from previous animal unit (A)
Total number of animals which died and were found dead (but were not
actively culled) during the flock cycle (M)
If no information is specifically available on culled birds, simply use the
flock records on mortality (which will then reflect mortality and culled
together)
Calculate the percentage mortality using the following equation:
68
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Percentage of mortality = (M/A ) x 100
Percentage of mortality on farm during the flock cycle
Culls on farm
Management-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit
Culling is defined as birds which are actively and humanely killed by the
animal unit manager for disease control purposes, lameness, sickness
or disease. These birds are known as ‘culls’.
Use farm records of the flock in the house to determine the number and
percentage of culled birds.
The animal unit manager is asked about mortality management on the
farm based on data collected from farm records. Estimate the number of
birds that are culled by checking the farm records. If no written
information or no accurate information is available from the animal unit
manager, mark this issue as not known. In that situation culls will be
included in the mortality figure. The percentage of birds culled can be
calculated by dividing the number of culled birds by the number of birds
housed. If culling is not specifically recorded then this should be noted –
as this implies that all deaths are ‘uncontrolled’.
Percentage culling on farm during flock cycle
Enlarged crops
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
An enlarged crop is a condition in which the crop becomes distended
with fluid and decomposing food. This abnormal development of the
crop is usually visible as a pronounced swelling on the lower neck of the
bird. The final score is based on both the inspection of the 100 birds and
visual observations during other work done in the henhouse.
Classification reflects the number of birds with enlarged crops.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of enlarged crops
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with enlarged crops
2 – 3 or more birds with enlarged crops
Eye pathologies
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
This measure assesses the flock in relation to eye pathologies. Eye
pathologies include swelling of the eyelids and the skin around the eyes,
closure of the eye/eyes and discharge from the eyes. The final score is
based on both the inspection of the 100 birds and visual observations
during other work done in the henhouse.
Classification reflects the number of birds with eye pathologies.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of eye pathologies
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with eye pathologies
2 – 3 or more birds with eye pathologies
69
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Respiratory infections
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
This measure assesses the flock in relation to respiratory infections.
Respiratory infections cause increased or laboured respiratory effort,
sneezing and are often associated with audible breathing sounds. The
final score is based on both the inspection of the 100 birds and visual
observations during other work done in the henhouse.
Classification reflects the number of birds with respiratory infections.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of respiratory infections
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with respiratory infections
2 – 3 or more birds with respiratory infections
Enteritis
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
This measure assesses the flock in relation to enteritis. Enteritis
includes gut infections or digestive metabolism abnormalities often
resulting in altered faecal state – discoloured faeces or increased liquid
content or diarrhoea. The final score is based on both the inspection of
the 100 birds and visual observations during other work done in the
henhouse.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of enteritis
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with enteritis
2 – 3 or more birds with enteritis
Parasites (excluding red mites)
Animal- and management-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Poultry species are susceptible to several parasites, including lice,
mites, ticks, fleas, and intestinal worms. They can be harmful as they
may transmit disease. Parasites can live on the birds (mites and lice)
and can be seen if the feather cover is inspected and moved aside by
hand. Parasites can also live inside the hen (intestinal worms) and then
mostly are not visible. The presence of worms can be suspected if hens
are pale and weak. The presence of worms can be established by
inspecting the faeces.
Examine the henhouse and housing system. Evidence of fleas can be
visible on windows or doors, where they leave their faeces. Beetles can
be found in manure pits. Check manure belts to see if manure contains
large numbers of worms.
The final score is based on both the inspection of the 100 birds and
visual observations during other work done in the henhouse. Inspect the
comb and the breast and legs by pushing the feathers aside to check for
lice and mites.
Flock level:
0 – No flea faeces on windows & doors
2 – Flea faeces on windows & doors
70
and
0 – No evidence of parasites
2 – Evidence of parasites
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Comb abnormalities
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
A normal comb has an even red colour and no wounds or scratches.
The final score is based on both the inspection of the 100 birds and
visual observations during other work done in the henhouse.
Apart from pecking wounds (these are scored separately) other comb
abnormalities should be scored as well.
Examples of comb abnormalities that are considered
• There should be no blue or black areas present
• Hens at the peak of production may have a slightly paler comb,
but combs which are very pale may indicate anaemia
• If hens are dehydrated, combs may look ‘dried out’ and blue
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of comb abnormalities
1 – Fewer than 3 birds with comb abnormalities
2 – 3 or more birds with comb abnormalities
© Fiks-van Niekerk, WUR
6.1.3.3 Absence of pain induced by management procedures
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Beak trimming
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Beak trimming can lead to abnormalities of the beak.
Score 100 birds - pick up the birds from within the penned group or from
the litter or slatted floor. In cage systems tae the birds from different
areas of the house and from different tier levels: Examine the beak on
both sides according to classification presented in the photographic
reference.
Individual level:
0 – No trimming and no abnormalities
1 – Moderate to light trimming with moderate to no abnormalities (or no
trimmed birds, but nonetheless with abnormalities on the beak)
2 – Severe trimming, with clear abnormalities
71
© Score 0: Gunnink, WUR; © scores 1 and 2: Fiks-van Niekerk, WUR
6.1.4 Appropriate behaviour
6.1.4.1 Expression of social behaviours
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Aggressive behaviours
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Aggressive behaviour is defined as fighting, severe pecking at other
birds or chasing other birds (when observed more than twice).
Aggressive behaviours often signalled by a loud squawk or vocalisation.
During the work in the henhouse the behaviour of the hens is observed.
Flock level:
0 – No evidence of aggressive behaviour
2 – Evidence of aggressive behaviour
Plumage damage
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
The feathers of normal birds should be smooth with no signs of
disturbance. All feather shafts then usually point in one direction
resulting in a protective and insulating cover to the skin. Due to abrasion
against wire, feather shafts can be broken. Due to pecking behaviour
feathers can be disturbed, broken or even torn out. Areas where feather
damage usually starts are the tail, neck and cloacal region.
Birds are visually inspected individually. Score each animal according to
three individual body parts (see photographic reference). For each bird
3 scores are given (i.e. 1 for each body part): being the back and rump
together, around the cloacae (belly) and head and neck together.
The 3 body parts are chosen to give information regarding the cause of
feather damage: damage to feathers of the back and rump usually
indicate feather pecking, damage to the feathers of head and neck can
be caused by abrasion, and feather damage to the belly can be seen in
highly productive animals. (However, the latter can also be caused by
vent pecking.).
72
© Bilcik, B. & L.J. Keeling, 1999
For each body part a score is given on a 3-point scale.
a – no or slight wear, (nearly) complete feathering (only single feathers
lacking);
b – moderate wear, i.e. damaged feathers (worn, deformed) or one or
more featherless areas < 5 cm in diameter at the largest extent;
c – at least one featherless area ≥ 5 cm in diameter at the largest
extent
To achieve a single general score per bird the scores of the 3 body
parts are combined according to the following classification.
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Individual level:
0 – All body parts have score ‘a’
1 – One or more body parts have score ‘b’, but no body part has score
‘c’
2 – One or more body parts have score ‘c’
Percentage of birds with scoring categories 0,1,2
Comb pecking wounds
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Pick up a bird from within the fenced or field area or from the litter or
slatted floor. In cage systems take the birds from different areas of the
house and from different tier levels: Examine the comb on both sides and
look for pecking wounds and score using the photographic reference. Do
not score healed lesions (scars).
Individual level:
0 – No evidence of pecking wounds
1 – Less than 3 pecking wounds
2 – Starting from 3 pecking wounds and more
Percentage of birds with scoring categories 0,1,2.
73
© Score 1: Staack, University of Kassel; © Score 2: Günther, University of Kassel; ©
lower photo for score 2: Keppler, University of Kassel
6.1.4.2 Expression of other behaviours
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Use of nest boxes
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
This measure cannot be made in systems without nest boxes (i.e. the
score for this measure will be ‘0’).
For non-cage systems: examine all nest rows and estimate the
distribution of nest boxes throughout the system. Estimate the
distribution of eggs over the egg belt within each nest row, by checking
the number of eggs coming off the egg belt when running. Check if, on
average, the same number of eggs are lying on the first, middle and last
part of the egg belt. Check if on average the same number of eggs are
collected from all nest rows. If it is not possible to see the egg belts
running, ask the animal unit manager to provide information on the
distribution of eggs.
Classification
Estimate the nest space per bird:
• For single nest boxes: count the number of nest boxes and
divide this by the number of hens
• For group nest boxes: measure the nest surface and multiply
this by the number of nest boxes. Then divide this total nest
space by the number of hens present at the moment of
2
monitoring. The outcome is the nest space per bird (in cm )
Flock level:
0 - Nest boxes available
2 - No nest boxes available
and
0 – Distribution of nest boxes throughout the system is even.
2 – Distribution of nest boxes throughout the system is not even.
and
74
0 – Distribution of eggs within nest row is even.
2 – Distribution of eggs within nest row is not even.
and
0 – Distribution of eggs between rows is even.
2 – Distribution of eggs between rows is not even.
and
Nest space per bird:
- single nest boxes: hens/nest
2
- group nest boxes: cm /hen nest space
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Use of litter
Animal-based measure : Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Dust bathing and scratching behaviour are important behaviours for
laying hens. There should be enough space for the hens to perform dust
bathing in groups as this is a social behaviour that birds tend to perform
together. In an appropriate situation one can see several birds sitting
together performing dust bathing behaviour (sitting in the litter and
shaking the litter into the feathers) without being disturbed by other birds
(e.g. due to excessive pecking behaviour). A less ideal situation is when
birds can perform dust bathing behaviour but not as a group. Apart from
dust bathing scratching and manipulating litter is an important behaviour
to the hens.
Assess the overall use of the litter during the work in the henhouse.
Flock level:
0 – Birds are seen performing dust bathing with 2 or more birds together
1 – Single birds are seen dust bathing or no dust bathing birds are
observed, but birds are seen scratching and manipulating the litter
2 – No litter present or no dust bathing or scratching/manipulating of
litter is seen
Enrichment measures
Resource-based measure : Laying hens
Animal unit
Check the area inside and around the henhouse for enrichment.
Enrichments may be: extra materials to manipulate (e.g. ropes hanging
down to peck at, bales of hay) or structures to make the environment
less barren (e.g. shelter roofs in the free range, dust bathing areas).
Record if there is any enrichment of the area and if it is used by the
birds.
0 – Between 50% and 100% of the birds are using the enrichments
1 – Less than 50% of the birds are using the enrichments
2 – No enrichments available or 0% of the birds are using the
enrichments
Free range
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Note that this measure is applicable to free range or extensive systems
only.
75
This measure is an indicator of both the birds’ ability to choose the
environment in which it ranges, and also the suitability of the
environment for birds.
Check the area around the henhouse and the walls of the house.
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Record if there is any range area present and if it is accessible for the
birds. If the openings to the range are closed, check if they will be
opened later. Check if the range is used by the birds by estimating the
number of hens in the range.
0 – Between 50% and 100% of the birds are using the range
1 – Fewer than 50% of the birds are using free range
2 – No access to range or 0% of the birds are using the range
Cover on the range
Resource-based measure : Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Note that this measure is applicable to free range or extensive systems
only. If no free range area is present this issue is not applicable. This
issue must then be recorded as 0%.
Cover on the range can be vegetation which the birds can use for cover
(e.g. deep grass, trees, maize) or man-made shelters (e.g. tents, roofs,
elevated camouflage nets, but not ‘closed poultry houses’). Cover offers
environmental variation to the birds and protection from aerial threats
and predators which are considered a restriction to birds’ use of range
in some outdoor systems.
Classification
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Classification
Ask the animal unit manager for information. Furthermore, examine the
free range area and estimate the percentage of the range area that is
covered by trees, bushes, or artificial shelters.
Estimated percentage of the range covered
Covered veranda
Resource-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Check the covered veranda, if present.
Record if there is any covered veranda and if it is accessible for the
birds. If the openings to the covered veranda are closed, check if they
will be opened later. Check if the covered veranda is used by the birds
by estimating the number of hens in the covered veranda.
0 – Between 50% and 100% of the birds are using the covered veranda
1 – Less than 50% of the birds are using the covered veranda
2 – No access to covered veranda or 0% of the birds are using the
range
6.1.4.3 Good human–animal relationship
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
Avoidance Distance Test (ADT)
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
Choose 3 different litter areas or aisles alongside an elevated slatted
76
description
floor or rows of cages and test hens based on the two different housing
systems (see below). Ideally these 3 areas or aisles reflect the various
areas in the house (e.g. middle aisle, outside aisle).
Non-cage systems:
Walk slowly parallel to the slatted floor through the litter area at a
distance of 1.5 meter from the edge of the slatted area. The hand is
held in a fixed position in front of the abdomen of the assessor, directly
above and in line with the birds feet. When a hen is sitting on the edge
of the slatted area, turn 90 degrees and stand facing the hen. Then walk
with a pace of one step per second towards the hen, looking at its toes.
When the hen turns away or retreats (both feet step aside or away), the
distance is measured from the hand of the assessor to the earlier
position of the feet of the hen.
Cage systems:
The test is performed in the tier level which is visible by the assessor
(which usually corresponds with tier level 2 or 3 depending on the cage
design). The assessor walks down the corridor with small steps and at a
distance of 60 cm from the body to the cage front. While walking, any
bird with its head out (including the comb) of the front wire-mesh of the
cage is selected. The assessor approaches the selected hen with one
hand held 15 cm in front of the body starting the approach from a
distance of 60 cm (from the hand to the front of the cage). After
selecting any hen with a head out of the cage the assessor turns
towards the hen and approaches the bird at a speed of 1 step/sec until
the bird withdraws into the cage. Then the distance from the assessor’s
hand to the front wire-mesh is measured.
Classification
In general:
Results are rounded to the nearest 5 cm. If a hen retreats due to other
reasons than your approach, the test is stopped and another hen is
chosen to perform the test. The average of all individual outcomes for
the avoidance distance test is calculated.
Individual level:
Record the average distance between hand of the tester and the place
where the feet of the hen used to be in cm.
6.1.4.4 Positive emotional state
Title
Scope
Sample size
Novel Object Test (NOT)
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Sample size according to § 6.1.5
77
Method
description
Classification
Select 4 places in the henhouse, representing the distribution of the
flock. In non-cage houses these should be locations in the litter. In cage
houses the Novel Object (NO) is positioned in/on the feed trough of the
cage level that is at breast height of the assessor.
The NO used in this test is a 50 cm long stick with coloured bands with
a diameter of approximately 2.5 cm width (see photographic reference).
Choose 4 locations in the litter area in the house. Wait for 5 minutes
after entering the house (to let the birds settle) and then place the NO in
the litter and step back 1.5 m. Starting immediately, count every 10
seconds (for a total of 2 minutes) the number of hens at a distance of
less than 1 birds length of the NO. This consequently results in 12
counts per location.
For cage houses the NO is placed in the feeder (see picture) and the
number of hens in the front half of the cage is counted. If the NO is not
clearly visible to the birds, it should be placed higher. This means that it
is either placed on top of the feeder (see picture) or, if this is not
possible, the NO is hung on the edge of the feed trough.
Flock level:
Average number of hens within hen length of the stick
© Left photo: Graml, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria; © lower 2 photos:
Gunnink, WUR
Title
Scope
Sample size
Method
description
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA)
Animal-based measure: Laying hens
Animal unit (depending on number of observation points, see method
description)
Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) considers the expressive
quality of how animals behave and interact with each other and the
environment i.e. their ‘body language’.
Select between one and eight observation points (depending on the size
and structure of the farm) that together cover the different areas of the
farm. Decide the order to visit these observation points, wait a few
minutes to allow the animals to return to undisturbed behaviour. Watch
78
the animals that can be seen well from that point and observe the
expressive quality of their activity at group level. It is likely that the
animals will initially be disturbed, but their response to this can be
included in the assessment. Total observation time should not exceed
20 minutes, and so the time taken at each observation point depends on
the number of points selected for a farm:
Number of observation
points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Duration of observation
per observation point in
minutes
10
10
6.5
5
4
3.5
3
2.5
When observation at all selected points has been completed, find a
quiet spot and score the 20 descriptors using the visual analogue scale
(VAS). Please note that scoring is not carried out during observation,
and that only one integrative assessment is made per farm.
Each VAS is defined by its left ‘minimum’ and right ‘maximum’ point.
‘Minimum’ means that at this point, the expressive quality indicated by
the term is entirely absent in any of the animals you have seen.
‘Maximum’ means that at this point this expressive quality is dominant
across all observed animals. Note that it is possible to give more than
one term a maximum score; animals could for example be both entirely
calm and content.
To score each term, draw a line across the 125 mm scale at the
appropriate point. The measure for that term is the distance in
millimetres from the minimum point to the point where the line crosses
the scale. Do not skip any term.
Please be aware when scoring terms that start with a negative pre-fix,
such as unsure or uncomfortable. As the score gets higher, the meaning
of the score gets more negative, not more positive.
Classification
The terms used for the QBA laying hens assessment are:
• Active
• Calm
• Friendly
• Relaxed
• Content
• Positively occupied
• Helpless
• Tense
• Scared
• Comfortable
• Inquisitive
• Drowsy
• Fearful
• Unsure
• Playful
• Agitated
• Energetic
• Nervous
• Confident
• Frustrated
• Distressed
• Depressed
• Bored
Flock level:
Continuous scales for all body language parameters from minimum to
maximum
6.1.5 Sampling and practical information
Table 10 Order for carrying out measures, sample size and time required for laying hens on farm.
Measure
Sample method or number of birds to Time required
79
On farm mortality
Culls on farm
Use of nest boxes
Huddling
Panting
Qualitative behaviour
assessment (QBA)
Novel object Test (NOT)
Avoidance Distance Test
(ADT)
Plumage damage
Keel bone deformation
Comb abnormalities
Comb pecking wounds
Skin lesions
Foot pad dermatitis
Beak trimming
Shape and total length of
available perches
Stocking density
Feeder space
Drinker space
Perforated floor
Use of litter
Dust sheet test
sample
Farm records - Establish number of birds
actively culled in relation to total number
placed.
Farm records - Establish number of birds
culled (not lost) in relation to total number
placed.
Establish the distribution of eggs over
rows and nest boxes. If this is not
possible, ask animal unit manager and
check records.
Calculate the nest space per bird.
Group observation (3 times, combined to
1 score), is carried out while doing other
work in the house, so only some time
required to write outcome down
Group observation (3 times, combined to
1 score), is carried out while doing other
work in the house, so only some time
required to write outcome down.
Observations made at 2-8 points
X
Object placed at 4 sites in the house,
each site taking 5 minutes waiting, 2
minutes to assess + 1 minute (movement
time) + 3 minutes preparation.
21 hens are assessed from 7 different
areas, 10 seconds approaching at each
site + 20 seconds recording + 30
seconds movement between sites.
100 birds picked - 10 birds from 10
locations
Establish the total perch length and
divide it by the number of hens housed.
Establish the total number of birds placed
and divide by the available area.
Calculate number of feeders x
area/length per feeder and divide by
number of birds placed.
Calculate number of drinkers x area per
drinker and divide by number of birds
placed.
Establish the total available slatted floor
area, the type and the state of repair.
Observe dust bathing and/of
scratching/manipulating litter.
Place dust test sheet at the start of
observation period and then assess at
the end
(min)
10
Z
5
1
1
30
X
35
30
180-240 -
5
Y
-Z
15
-Z
5
-Z
5
-Z
5
-Z
2
5
80
Evidence of red mites or other
parasites
Aggressive behaviour
Cover on the range
Free range
Enrichment measures
Covered veranda
Toe damage
Enlarged crops
Eye pathologies
Respiratory infections
Enteritis
Check environment of birds. Also check
flock in general and more precise 100
birds for parasites. If possible also check
dead birds.
Check for aggressive behaviour of the
birds.
Check free range area and make
calculation.
Check free range area, covered veranda
and area inside the house
Based on impressions during time spent
in the house and when recording 100
birds – 10 birds from different locations
Total
1
5
5
345-405 minutes
-Y
(6-7 hours)
X
Qualitative assessment: observation time per spot, 5 minutes in case of 4 spots and 10 minutes in case of 2 spots
Variation mainly due to variation in scoring 100 birds. Not included are the calculations afterwards that need to be
carried out
Z
Not included are the calculations afterwards that need to be carried out to get the totals
Y
Selecting laying hens for assessment
• The same 100 selected hens can be used for the several clinical assessments; these are
keel bone deformation, skin lesions, comb abnormalities, comb pecking wounds, foot pad
dermatitis, beak trimming and plumage damage.
• Additionally, for these measures the following selection method should be used: 100 birds per
flock should be selected from various points in the house. Ideally the selection should reflect
the various areas in the house (perches, nest boxes, litter, slatted floor, covered veranda,
free range). A selection can be made by either penning (corralling) birds or by picking up
individual birds in several areas of the henhouse. The number of places to collect hens is
dependent on the housing system and the number of compartments.
• In general, for the various observations and measurements the person carrying out the
protocol can observe birds in various parts of the henhouse.
• The measure use of litter, evidence of red mites, parasites and aggressive behaviours are
carried out while doing other work in the house, so time indication in Table 10 reflects only
the time required to write the outcomes down.
• In cage systems take the birds from different areas of the house and from different tier levels.
6.2 Calculation of scores for laying hens on farm
Not included in the protocol at the moment
6.3 Collection of data for laying hens at slaughterhouse
Not included in the protocol at the moment.
6.4 Calculation of scores for laying hens at slaughterhouse
Not included in the protocol at the moment.
81
Annex A: Guidelines for visit to the animal unit
Broiler chicken
List of equipment needed
Equipment
Clean appropriate clothing and footwear
Clean scoring sheets
Clip board
Pen/pencils
Laminated reference photo sheet for foot
pads, hocks, cleanliness
Dräger or Kitagawa apparatus and
ammonia tubes (2)
Catching pen
Luxmeter
A 10 meter rule
A4 sheet of black paper
Camera
Remark
Preferably use farm clothing and footwear, ensure your
own clothing is clean and disinfected (if farm clothing and
footwear appears not to be available)
New set for each farm
For scoring sheets
pencil will continue to write in a dusty environment
This card presents the scoring categories and is used as
a check during scoring
To determine NH3-levels (additional information if levels
seem very high)
To catch birds for lesion and cleanliness scoring and gait
scoring
For measuring light level (additional information if levels
seem very low)
For measuring dimensions of the broiler house
For measuring dust levels
To make photo's of record sheets, which is a fast way of
collecting some farm record data (only with farmer
permission).
Communication with the farmer
At the first contact with the farmer the following issues should be addressed:
• Introduction of the assessor: from what organisation, what authority
• Brief explanation of the aim of the visit and the protocol
• Estimation of time needed for the farm visit
• Ask the age of the birds and make sure they are in the desired age range
• Agreement that assessor can work in the hen house and is allowed to catch birds
• State that unnecessary disturbance will be avoided
• Agreement to bring equipment to the farm
• Reassure the farmer that the equipment will be clean
• Discuss any specific bio security and ‘bird free days’ arrangements which the farmer may
request
• Check working hours of farmer: when can the visit start?
• How much time is required from the farmer? When will (s)he be available?
• Agree on a date and starting time for the visit
• Ask farmer to bring farm records and if available official measuring reports for the broiler
house
Bio-security measures
In communication with the farmer it is good to ask for any requirements with regards to time
between farm visits (e.g. is there any time requirement that the assessor should not have been in
contact with poultry).
82
Make sure all equipment taken to the farm has been thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. It is
advisable to transport all equipment in a closed box, in this way minimal contamination of the car
occurs.
Laying hens
List of equipment needed
Equipment
Clean appropriate clothing and footwear
Clean scoring sheets
Clip board
Pen/pencils
Black permanent marker
Clinical scoring chart
Measuring tape (2m)
Dräger or Kitagawa apparatus and
ammonia tubes (2)
Catching pen
Novel object
Novel object calibration sheet/square
Novel Object measuring frame and cap
Stop watch
A 10 meter rule and a rigid meter
A4 sheet of black paper
Camera
Remark
Preferably use farm clothing and footwear, ensure
your own clothing is clean and disinfected (if farm
clothing and footwear appears not to be available)
New set for each farm
For scoring sheets
Pencil will continue to write in a dusty environment
To mark birds on left leg after clinical scoring; in this
way no bird will be scored twice
This chart presents the scoring categories and is
used as a check during scoring
For ADT-test and for measuring farm equipment
To determine NH3-levels
To catch birds
50 cm long and 2.5 cm diameter stick with coloured
bands (see photographic reference)
To determine the exact distance to the novel object
The sheet/square is 62,5 cm wide and 110 cm long
To determine which birds are within 30 cm of the
stick
For timing NOT-test
For measuring sizes in the henhouse
For measuring dust levels
To make photos of record sheets, which is a fast
way of collecting the data (only with farmer
permission).
Communication with the farmer
At the first contact with the farmer the following issues should be addressed:
• Introduction of the assessor: from what organisation, what authority
• Brief explanation of the aim of the visit and the protocol
• Estimation of time needed for the farm visit
• Ask the age of the birds and make sure they are in the desired age range
• Agreement that assessor can work in the hen house and is allowed to catch birds
• State that unnecessary disturbance will be avoided
• Agreement to bring equipment to the farm
• Reassure the farmer that the equipment will be clean
• Discuss any specific bio security and ‘bird free days’ arrangements which the farmer may
request
• Check working hours of farmer: when can the visit start?
• How much time is required from the farmer? When will (s)he be available?
• Agree on a date and starting time for the visit
• Ask farmer to bring farm records and if available official measuring reports of the laying hen
house
83
Bio-security measures
In communication with the farmer it is advisable to ask for any requirements with regards to time
between farm visits (e.g. is there any time requirement that the assessor should not have been in
contact with poultry).
Make sure all equipment taken to the farm has been thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. It is
advisable to transport all equipment in a closed box, i.e. in this way minimal contamination of the
car occurs.
Sequence of recording
The sequence of the recordings is partly dependant on when the farmer is available. Also in layer
units it is inadvisable to disturb the birds in the morning, when eggs are laid. The checklist in
Annex B lists the measures in the preferred order, but the assessor may carry them out in any
order he finds practical depending on farm arrangements.
84
Annex B: Recording sheets
B1. Recording Sheet broiler chicken on farm
Audit Protocol Instruction: Broiler chickens on farm
Name
Date
Farm name
Number of birds on site (at the time of the visit)
Number of birds originally placed in House (x)
Number of birds in House (x) at the time of
visit
Date placed
Age at day of inspection
Hatchery
Parent flock age (s)
Genotype
Average bird weight at time of visit (taken from
records of weights taken by the producer)
1. Estimate the percentage of birds panting/huddling at five locations in the house (use this
table to record at different locations as you move around the house carrying out other test
activities). Panting and huddling are indicators of thermal environment – panting indicates
too hot, huddling indicates too cold – this is a range of behaviours for one measure
(temperature). Estimate the percentage of birds panting (hot) or huddling (cold).
Location
1
2
3
4
5
Estimate %
panting /
huddling
Estimate
%
Estimate
%
Estimate
%
Estimate
%
Estimate %
Tick if Panting
P ()
OR
Huddling H
()
P
P
P
P
P
H
H
H
H
H
Note - At this point during the inspection - please place the black paper sheets for
the dust test –
Place the black paper sheets above bird height near to the house entrance
85
2 Qualitative Behaviour Assessment
Please be sure that the lines of the QBA measures are 125 mm.
Min.
Max.
Active
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Relaxed
Comfortable
Fearful
Agitated
Confident
Depressed
Calm
Content
Tense
Unsure
Energetic
Frustrated
86
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Bored
Friendly
Positively
Occupied
Scared
Nervous
Happy
Distressed
3. Touch test, repeat the trial 21 times. Record the number of birds at arms length at each trial,
and then the number of birds actually touched. If no birds have been touched after 12 trials – stop
the test at 12 trials.
(Stop) in table below.
Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number
at arms
length
Number
touched
Trail
8
9
10
11
12 (Stop)
13
14
Number
at arms
length
Number
touched
Trial
Number
at arms
length
Number
touched
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
87
4. Gait score Location 1 (L1): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen)
Gait score L1
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Location 2 (L2): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen) and litter score.
Gait score L2
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L2
0
1
2
3
4
5
Location 3 (L3): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen) and litter score.
Gait score L3
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Location 4 (L4): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen) and litter score.
Gait score L4
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L4
0
1
2
3
4
5
Location 5 (L5): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen) and litter score.
Gait score L5
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L5
0
88
1
2
3
4
5
Location 6 (L6): Gait score of around 25 birds (caught with catching pen) and litter score.
Gait score L6
Gait score category
Number of birds score in this category
Total L6
0
1
2
3
4
5
5. Litter score.
0. Completely dry and flaky – moves easily with the foot.
1. Dry but not easy to move with foot.
2. Leaves imprint of foot and will form a ball if compacted, but ball does not stay together
well.
3. Stick to boots and sticks readily in a ball if compacted.
4. Sticks to boots once the cap or compacted crust is broken.
Score
Location 1
Score
Location 2
Score
Location 3
Score
Location 4
Score
Location 5
Score
Location 6
Litter score
6. Cleanliness, foot pad dermatitis, hock burn breast burn
Location 1 (L1): Pen approximately 10 - 20 birds and score cleanliness, foot pad dermatitis,
hock burn breast burn.
Repeat until 100 birds have been scored. DO NOT USE THE SAME BIRDS AS USED FOR
GAIT SCORING
Cleanliness score
Foot Pad Dermatitis Score
Hock Burn Score
(0-3: 0=clean 3=dirty)
(0-4: 0=absent 4=severe)
(0-4: 0=absent 4=severe)
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
89
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
7. Space: measure the length and width of the house. Calculate the stocking density using data
collected at the beginning of the audit or later from the slaughterhouse.
Length
(m) (L)
Width
(m) (W)
8. Drinker space
There are a number of different drinker types. Calculate the number or ratio of drinker points: birds or length of water
trough per bird.
Number of bell
drinkers
Circumference
of bell drinkers
(cm)
Number of
nipple drinkers
Number of
cup drinkers
9. Dust: Inspect the black paper sheet which you placed near to the entrance door. Write
something with your finger on the black paper:
No dust, all black
paper visible
Little dust
Thin covering of dust
A lot of dust, but some
black paper visible
Paper colour not
visible
10. Estimate the proportion of the range covered (For birds with access to range).
Make your assessment at 3 sites to ensure that representative of farm as a whole.
None (0%)
Less than 5 %
5-10%
10-20%
>20%
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Overall
11. Estimate the proportion of animals outside? (For birds with access to range)
Make your assessment at 3 sites to ensure that representative of farm as a whole.
None (0%)
Less than 50
%
about 50%
More than 50
%
100 %
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
90
Overall
12. Mortality From the farm records, calculate the percentage mortality (not including culled
birds).
Number of birds placed in house from hatchery (A)
Total number of birds which died during the flock cycle (B)
13. Culls using house records of bird numbers placed and number actively culled: (do not include
birds which were ‘found dead’ only those actively culled by the animal unit manager for disease
control etc.).
Total number of birds which were culled during the flock
cycle (B).
B2. Recording Sheet broiler chicken at slaughterhouse
Audit Protocol Instruction: transport, lairage, stunning and slaughter of broiler chickens
Processing plant
Name of farm assessed birds are from
Date
Time
House number
Number of birds from the house delivered
overall to slaughter
Genotype
Stunner type
Average Bird Weight
Equipment required
Stop watch Foot pad, hock burn, breast burn and cleanliness charts
Tape measure, Clip board, Flashlight (to see birds in dark parts of the factory e.g. stunning area),
Pen/pencil
From Slaughterhouse records collect the following (if available)
1. Calculate the total duration of food and water withdrawal period for your flock. You will
need to ask the contact at the plant for these details. This information may have been
collected during the farm visit or you may need to telephone the animal unit manager to
find it.
Feed withdrawal
period on farm (Tf)
(minutes)
Water
withdrawal
period on farm
(Twf) (minutes)
Journey time
(Jt)
(minutes) = Tt
and Twt
Waiting time in
lairage (Lt)
(minutes) = Tl
and Twl
91
2. Stocking density in crates.
Ask your plant contact: how long and how wide the bird transport crates are and how many birds are in each crate:
OR count the number of birds in 10 crates.
Crate number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average number
of birds per crate
10
Number of birds
Measure a bird transport crate: Calculate the average stocking density of birds in crates on the transport vehicle (birds/m2)
Length (cm) (L)
Width (cm) (W)
3. Panting and huddling are indicators of thermal environment – panting indicates too hot,
huddling indicates too cold – this is a range of behaviours for one measure (temperature).
Estimate the percentage of birds panting (huddling and so showing cold stress) on the lorry and
in the lairage.
Crate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Number in crate
Number panting
Number huddling
Crate
Number in crate
Number panting
Number huddling
Ask your plant contact what the linespeed is OR measure the number of birds passing a given point during 3
separate minutes.
Line speed
92
4. Assess the % of birds flapping on the shackle line.
Assessment time (minutes)
Number of birds showing flapping on the line
5. Measure percentage of birds with wing fractures.
Recording
period
(duration of
period, min)
Number of
birds seen
with
fractured
(hanging
down) wing
6. Measure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
7
8
9
10
6
7
8
9
10
percentage of birds receiving pre-stun shocks.
Recording
period
(duration of
period, min)
Number of
birds
receiving
pre-stun
shocks
1
2
3
4
5
7. Assess stunner effectiveness at stunner exit.
Recording
period
(duration of
period min)
Number of
birds not
effectively
stunned
1
2
3
4
5
8. Measure percentage of birds with breast burn on the line immediately after de-feathering by
observing birds passing on the line for a known time interval.
Breast burn score
Number of birds with score 1
Total number of birds
Total number of birds
observed (Time x line speed)
93
9. Measure
percentage of birds with foot burn on the line after de-feathering.
Foot pad
dermatitis
score
Number of
birds
Number of
birds with
score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Total
number of
birds
10. Measure percentage of birds with hock burn on the line after de-feathering.
Hock burn
score
Number of
birds with
score 0
Score 1
Score 2
Score 3
Score 4
Number of
birds
Total
number of
birds
11. Measure percentage of birds with bruising.
Recording
period
(duration of
period, min)
Number of
birds seen
with recent
bruising.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
94
12. Reject information and other information (record the number of birds from which
each sample is taken (Tn)– for example – xx Emaciated birds from total yy of flock seen)
Downgrade condition
Number of birds reject
Number of birds reject
Number of birds reject
(welfare related)
position 1
position 2
position 3
Dead on Arrival
Emaciated birds
Ascites
Dehydration
Septicaemia
Hepatitis
Pericarditis
Abscess
Tn - Total number of
birds passing during
observation period
B3. Recording Sheets laying hens on farm
Name assessor
Date
Farm name
Start time
House number
Number of birds on site (at the time of the visit)
Date placed
Age at placing
Age at day of inspection
Name of person interviewed
Number of hens on site
Number of males on site
Genotype
Type of house: furnished/aviary/floor system
/other
Free range: yes/no
Veranda: yes/no
95
Number of sections in the house
Sections divided by: wire/closed
Ventilation; mechanical/natural/other
Other
Weather: bright sunlight/dim light/cloudy
o
Outside temperature: C/F
Rain/snow/wind/other
1. Mortality From the farm records, calculate the percentage mortality (not including
culled birds):
Percent Mortality
Number of birds placed in
Total number of birds which
house from rearer (A)
died during the flock cycle (B). (B/A) x 100
□ Not known
2. Culls Using house records of bird numbers placed and number culled:
Number of birds placed in
Total number of birds which
Percent Culled
house from rearer (A)
were culled during the flock
(B/A) x 100
cycle (B).
□ Not known
3.. Dust sheet test in Henhouse
Place the black paper sheets above bird height near to the entrance
4. Panting
Estimate the percentage of birds panting (impression at start of work in henhouse, average of
complete house)
Estimated % of birds panting
5. Huddling
Estimate the percentage of birds huddling: (impression at start of work in henhouse, average of
complete house)
Estimated % of birds huddling
(only count birds that huddle for
thermal reasons)
96
6. Qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA)
Please observe the animals from near the house entrance and in the centre of the house for 20
minutes in total in n 2-4 places. Then assess their behavioural expression (‘body language’) by
scoring the following terms:
Min.
Max.
Active
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Relaxed
Comfortable
Fearful
Agitated
Confident
Depressed
Calm
Content
Tense
Unsure
Energetic
97
Frustrated
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
Bored
Friendly
Positively
Occupied
Scared
Nervous
Happy
Distressed
General comments and observations:
98
7. Novel Object test (NOT)
Wait 5 min at location before putting down novel object
Novel object test. Location a:
Time after 10” 20'’ 30” 40'’ 50” 1’ 1’10” 1’20''
placement
(s)
Number of
birds at a
distance
of
less
than a bird
length of
the NO
Novel object test. Location b:
Time after 10” 20'’ 30” 40'’
placement
(s)
Number of
birds at a
distance
of
less
than a bird
length of
the NO
Novel object test. Location c:
Time after 10” 20'’ 30” 40'’
placement
(s)
Number of
birds at a
distance
of
less
than a bird
length of
the NO
Novel object test. Location d:
Time after 10” 20'’ 30” 40'’
placement
(s)
Number of
birds at a
distance
of
less
than a bird
length of
the NO
1'30”
1’40''
1’50”
2’
Total
NOT
(a)
50”
1’
1’10”
1’20''
1'30”
1’40''
1’50”
2’
Total
NOT
(b)
50”
1’
1’10”
1’20''
1'30”
1’40''
1’50”
2’
Total
NOT
(c)
50”
1’
1’10”
1’20''
1'30”
1’40''
1’50”
2’
Total
NOT
(d)
Average outcome NOT
= ( NOT (a) + NOT (b) + NOT (c) + NOT (d) ) / 4
99
8. Avoid distance Test (ADT)
Avoidance Distance Test. Location a:
Bird number
1
2
3
Avoidance
distance (cm)
4
5
6
7
Total AD(a)
11
12
13
14
Total AD(b)
18
19
20
21
Total AD(c)
Avoidance Distance Test. Location b:
Bird number
8
9
10
Avoidance
distance (cm)
Avoidance Distance Test. Location c:
Bird number
15
16
17
Avoidance
distance (cm)
Mean avoidance distance =
( Ad(a)+Ad(b)+Ad(c) ) / 3
9. Estimate the percentage of birds panting (estimation before starting with the clinical
scoring; impression of complete house)
Estimated % of birds panting
10. Estimate the percentage of birds huddling: (estimation before starting with the clinical
scoring; impression of complete house)
Estimated % of birds huddling
(only count birds that huddle for
thermal reasons)
100
11. Clinical Scoring
Bird
number
Plumage
(0-2;
0=good
1=no
score 2;
2= >1
naked
patch
>5cm)
Keel score
(0/2;0=no
deformatio
n
2=deforma
tion)
Comb
pecking
wounds
(0-2;
0=none
1=<3
pecks
2=>3
pecks)
Skin
lesions
(0-2; 0=no
1=<2cm
or>3
pecks;
2=>2cm)
Foot pad
dermatitis
(0-2;
0=intact
1=some
problems
2=swollen
)
Beak trimming
(0=no trim, no
abnormality;
1=light
2=severe/abno
rmal)
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
101
Bird
number
Plumage
(0-2;
0=good
1=no
score 2;
2= >1
naked
patch
>5cm)
Keel score
(0/2;0=no
deformatio
n
2=deforma
tion)
Comb
pecking
wounds
(0-2;
0=none
1=<3
pecks
2=>3
pecks)
Skin
lesions
(0-2; 0=no
1=<2cm
or>3
pecks;
2=>2cm)
Foot pad
dermatitis
(0-2;
0=intact
1=some
problems
2=swollen)
Beak trimming
(0=no trim, no
abnormality;
1=light
2=severe/abno
rmal)
Remarks
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
102
Bird
number
Plumage
(0-2;
0=good
1=no
score 2;
2= >1
naked
patch
>5cm)
Keel score
(0/2;0=no
deformatio
n
2=deforma
tion)
Comb
pecking
wounds
(0-2;
0=none
1=<3
pecks
2=>3
pecks)
Skin
lesions
(0-2; 0=no
1=<2cm
or>3
pecks;
2=>2cm)
Foot pad
dermatitis
(0-2;
0=intact
1=some
problems
2=swollen)
Beak trimming
(0=no trim, no
abnormality;
1=light
2=severe/abno
rmal)
Remarks
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
103
Bird
number
Plumage
(0-2;
0=good
1=no
score 2;
2=
>1
naked
patch
>5cm)
Keel score
(0/2;0=no
deformation
2=deformatio
n)
Comb
pecking
wounds
(0-2;
0=none
1=<3
pecks
2=>3
pecks)
Skin
lesions
(0-2;
0=no
1=<2cm
or>3
pecks;
2=>2cm)
Foot pad
dermatitis
(0-2;
0=intact
1=some
problems
Beak trimming
Remarks
(0=no trim, no
abnormality;
1=light
2=severe/abnor
mal)
2=swollen)
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Mean
score
104
12. Other Questions/Observations
Space measurements/ food water, litter observations
0= No
Is there a written
1= Yes, type/authority: ……………………………………………………………..
report used of
………………………………………………………………………………………..
previous credible
inspection which
has measured
available space?
13. Perches
Exclude (parts of) perches which the birds cannot access (including corners).
For A-frames:
Number of
Number
Length
Total perch Number of birds
Perch length per bird
length
(cm)
placed minus
perches per Aof Aof Amortality to date
frame
frame
frame
For multi-level systems:
Length of one
Number
perch
of
perches
For cages:
Total perch
length per cage
Number
of cages
Total
perch
length
Number of birds placed
minus mortality to date
Perch length per bird
(cm)
Total
perch
length
Number of birds placed
minus mortality to date
Perch length per bird
(cm)
Shape and position of the perches:
Shape in cross section
Presence of a resting zone (with
perches, but no feeders)
0 - No presence of sharp
edges on perch
0 - more than 50% of the
perch length is
positioned in a resting
zone
14. Use of nest boxes
Are there nest boxes?
Are the nests evenly spaced throughout the system?
Is the distribution of eggs within nest rows even?
Is the distribution of eggs between rows even?
2 - Presence of sharp edges
on perch
2 - 0-50% of the perch
length is positioned in a
resting zone
0= yes / 2=
no
0= yes / 2=
no
0= yes / 2=
no
0= yes / 2=
no
105
Single nest –calculate number of birds per nest.
Total number of nests
Number of birds placed
Bird: nest ratio
Group nest – calculate available nest box area per bird.
2
Number of nests
Nest area per nest (m )
Number of birds placed
2
Birds / m of nest
area
15. Space: measure the length and width of the house. Calculate the stocking density
using data collected at the beginning of the audit
Cages
Usable
area / cage
2
(cm )
Non-Cages
Overall
litter floor
2
area (m )
(L)
Number of
hens / cage
Number of
cages
Stocking
density:
Usable area
/ bird
2
(cm /hen)
Number of
birds
placed (N)
Number of
birds
which died
or were
culled (M)
Number of
birds in the
house (N –
M) (B)
Overall
usable nonlitter floor
2
area (m )
(W)
Total
usable
2
area (m )
(L +
W)=(U)
Number of
birds
placed (N)
Number of
birds which
died or
were culled
(M)
Number of
birds in the
house (N –
M) (B)
Stocking
density:
2
birds/ m
usable
area (B / U)
16. Feeders
Record feeder type…………………………………………………………………
Feed space per bird.
Number of
Circumference
pan feeders
of pan feeders
(cm)
Total feeder
access length
(cm)
Track
length
x2
Track
length
x1
Number of
birds placed
Cm feeder
access per
bird
17. Drinkers
Calculate the number or ratio of drinker points: birds or length of water trough per bird.
Number Circumference Number Number
Number of
Cm drinker
Bird: nipple
of bell
of bell drinkers of nipple of cup
birds placed
access per
drinker ratio
drinkers (cm)
drinkers drinkers
bird
106
18. Perforated floors
Indicate the % of total space covered with perforated floors and describe the type / style of
perforated flooring material
Total % of usable area covered with perforated
floor
% of total perforated floor made of wire mesh
19. Use of litter
Use of litter
Do you see birds
performing dust
bathing behaviour in
loose friable material
yes
Do you see birds
performing dust bathing
behaviour together
without being disturbed
by other birds (e.g. by
excessive pecking
birds)
yes
0= good use of litter
no
no
Do you see birds
scratch and
manipulate the litter
no
yes
1=moderate use of litter
2= no good use of litter
20. Expression of social behaviours
Do you see aggressive behaviour?
21. Enrichment measures
0= Between 50% and
100% of the birds are
using it
Enrichments
(e.g. hanging
ropes, bales of
hay, partitions,
roofs in free
range area)
Free range
0 = No
2= Yes
1= Less than 50% of
the birds are using it
2= Not available or 0%
of the birds are using it
Covered
veranda
107
22. Clinical conditions: Estimate the proportion of birds with the following conditions:
0= <3 birds
1=>3 birds, <25%
2= >25% of birds
birds
With enlarged crops
With eye pathologies
With respiratory infections
With enteritis
With toe damage
With comb abnormalities
23. Evidence of Red mites
Red mite
0= No red mites
infestation
detectable on birds and
in the house
1
24. Parasites (other than red mites)
Is there fly mesh on windows & doors?
Is there any evidence of parasites?
(beetles, lice, worms)
1= Red mites found
on birds or in the
house, but not in
large quantities and
not clearly visible
2= Large quantities of red
mites found on birds
and/or in the house
0 = No
2 = Yes
0 = No
2 = Yes
B4. Recording Sheet laying hens at slaughterhouse
Not included in the protocol at the moment.
108
Annex C: Contributors to Welfare Quality®
Welfare Quality® partners
Country
ID-Lelystad, Instituut voor dierhouderij en diergezondheid, Lelystad
IFIP Institut du Porc, Rennes
Cardiff University (formerly known as UWC: University of Wales, Cardiff), Cardiff
Coopérative Interdépartementale Aube, Loiret, Yvonne, Nièvre
Aarhus University (formerly known as DIAS: Danish Institute of Agricultural
Sciences), Aarhus
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna
University of Kassel (formerly known as UNIK), Kassel
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris
Institut de l’Elevage, Paris
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Girona
Institut Supérieur d’Agriculture Lille, Lille
Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien,Vienna
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven
University of Copenhagen (formerly known as KVL: The Royal Veterinary and
Agricultural University), Copenhagen
UPRA France Limousin Selection, Boisseuil
Teagasc - The National Food Centre, Carlow
National Institute for Consumer Research, Oslo
Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oslo
ASG Veehouderij BV (formerly known as: Praktijkonderzoek Veehouderij BV),
Lelystad
Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh
Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona
Göteborg University, Göteborg
Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne
Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management,
Lund University, Lund
Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Animal and Aquacultural
Sciences, Aas
Università degli Studi di Parmai, Parma
Università degli Studi di Padova-Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Padua
University of Pisa Dipartimento di Agronomia e Gestione dell'AgroecosistemaSezione Economia', Pisa
The University of Bristol, Bristol
Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6 University), Paris
The University of Reading, Reading
Wageningen University, Wageningen
Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm
Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animalia SpA, Reggio Emilia
Vyzkumny ustav zivocisme vyroby, Prague
The University of Exeter, Exeter
University of Toulouse le Mirail, Toulouse
Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek, Merelbeke
The Netherlands
France
United Kingdom
France
Denmark
Austria
Germany
France
France
Spain
France
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
France
Ireland
Norway
Norway
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Sweden
Italy
United Kingdom
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Italy
Italy
United Kingdom
France
United Kingdom
The Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
France
Belgium
109
Universidad de la República, Montevideo
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mexico City
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences,
Sao Paolo
Veterinary Faculty, Universidad de Chile, Santiago
Uruguay
Mexico
NEN (Netherlands Standardization Institute )
The Netherlands
Brasil
Chili
NEN is the national organization for standardization in the Netherlands, recognized under
®
European law. NEN supported the writing and editing of the Welfare Quality assessment
®
protocols according to the input received from the Welfare Quality consortium.
Colophon
ISBN number: ISBN/EAN 978-90-78240-06-8
October 1st 2009
Welfare Quality® consortium
Represented by the coordinator
ASG Veehouderij BV, Lelystad, The Netherlands
Welfare Quality® project office
P.O. Box 65
8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
Lay-out Grafisch Atelier Wageningen, The Netherlands
Photography bvBeeld Wageningen, The Netherlands (cover and pages
12,14,16,20,28,64)
Print Drukkerij Modern, Bennekom, The Netherlands
110